1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1867 of 1996 Madhukar Harbaji Kolhe VERSUS Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. K. Waghmare, Counsel for respondent no.1 Mr. A. M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 17, 2011. Heard. Since, Mr. S. D. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner had expired during the pendency of the petition, this Court had, by an order dated 07/3/2011, issued notice to the petitioner for engagement of another counsel. It appears that the notice issued to the petitioner is received back unserved as the noticee has retired three years ago. The cause title of the petition does not give the residential address of the petitioner. It is merely stated that the petitioner is working as a Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kandhali, Dist. Wardha. The solemn affirmation of the petitioner also does not give the residential or any other address of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it appears that it would not be possible to serve the petitioner on his office address as he has retired. 2 The writ petition is of the year 1996. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale