1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1996 R. P. Dhote and others VERSUS Katol Municipal Council, Katol - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. R. D. Raskar, Advocate for the petitioners CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : JULY 14, 2011. Mrs. R. D. Raskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the services of most of the petitioners have been regularised. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that inspite of issuance of several communications to the other petitioners, whose services have not been regularised or at least of which the learned counsel for the petitioners has no knowledge, the petitioners have not responded and no instructions are received by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in such circumstances, it would not be possible for the learned counsel to work out the matter. Hence, in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale