1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3843/2007 Jitendra N. Ghosekar ..vs.. The State of Mah. & ors. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr. S.J. Khandalkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R. Nos. 1,3 & 4. Mr. S. K. Mishra, Advocate for R. No. 2. CORAM : B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 19th November, 2008. Further to our last order dated 12th November, 2008, Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, has placed on record the pursis along with the letter dated 17/7/2008 addressed from the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust. We have perused the said letter. It is clear that the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 5th July, 2008 to the State Government has been taken cognizance and on some issues in the said letter A. C. B. Enquiry is already in progress. Even the other issues are to be investigated after receiving information and the investigation is likely to be done by the Divisional Commissioner. A copy of the petitioner's letter dated 5th July, 2 2008 is also on record and we have noted that the grievances raised in this petition are also the subject matter of the said letter, which is under investigation/enquiry, as directed by the State Government. In view of the fact that the State Government is already seized of the enquiry, it would not be appropriate to keep this petition pending, more so, when it is not admitted. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the action proposed to be taken by the State Government or on conducting the enquiry, the State Government delays or avoids to take further appropriate action, the disposal of this petition, would not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to appropriate legal steps. Hence, the petition is rejected and it is made clear that the rejection of this petition does not in any way affect the State Government's responsibility to go ahead with the enquiry into the petitioner's complaint dated 5th July, 2008. The enquiry to be completed expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE. Andurkar.