wp8692-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8692 OF 2010 Ninu Shivdas Khanna .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Vinay A. Sonpal for the petitioner. Ms.Aparna Vhatkar, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Adv with Mr.Sumit Raghani i/by PDS & Associates for respondent No.5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 30th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Mr.Sonpal appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not wish to proceed against respondent No.6 and his name be deleted at his risk. The office report says that he has expired. 2 By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1st July 2010. That order has been delivered by the Additional Collector, Raigad in a revision application under section 23 of the Mamlatdar Court’s Act, 1906. wp8692-10.doc 2 3 When this petition was placed before the Court and notice was issued, a direction was issued not to proceed in the matter on the basis of the remand order. Mr.Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 in all fairness stated that the matter has not proceeded subsequent to the order of remand. In these circumstances, both sides agree that the petition be taken up for admission at this stage itself and disposed off. 4 By consent, the order passed on 1st July 2010 is set aside and the revision application/Appeal No.19 of 2010 is restored to the file of the Additional Collector, Raigad for being decided afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that all contentions of the parties including on the point of limitation, jurisdiction and merits are kept open. The Additional Collector shall pass a fresh order without being influenced by any of the conclusions and findings recorded earlier. Petition is disposed off. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)