1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.W.NO.2639/2009 IN W.P. NO. 1854/2008. Smt. Sheela Sardarsingh Chauhan -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 09, 2010. Heard Shri S. Dewani, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri A. Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no.5/applicant. Present application is taken out by respondent no.5 for directions. The directions are sought in view of the liberty given by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 25.03.2009 while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal No. 366/2008. I have considered the application, reply filed thereby and also the other material placed on record by the parties. The contention of respondent no.5 is that merely by assigning reason of pendency of present Writ Petition, the grievance made are not being looked into. According to other respondents, the grievances have been looked into. The petitioner has got his own version of the matter. It is apparent that the Division Bench has permitted subsequent events to be placed before the Authorities and 2 the Authorities are also informed that they are not restrained from taking any other appropriate action in respect of such subsequent violation/breaches. In the circumstances, if respondent no.5 feels aggrieved because of any inaction or any other alleged incorrect approach by respondents, he is free to raise that grievance before the appropriate forum. With that liberty, present Civil Application is disposed of. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for applicant states that Writ Petition itself should be listed for final hearing. Writ Petition is of the year 2008, hence for the present the request cannot be considered. Liberty to renew the said request in the month of June, 2010. JUDGE Rgd.