1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. W.P. NO.5038 OF 2008 Dhanraj Harishchandra Khandelwal ..vs.. The Union of India and others. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: D.D.SINHA and A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : 6th March, 2009. Heard Mr.C.S.Kaptan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shyam Ahirkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr.Sambre, Government Pleader for respondents no.2 and 3 and Mr.V.V.Bhangade, the learned counsel for respondent no.4 Respondent no.1 has brought to our notice that on earlier occasion i.e. on 2/3/2009 the matter was listed for admission and was heard by this court. It is further submitted that after hearing the counsel for the petitioner the 2 court has expressed that there is no case made out to show any indulgence and was about to dismiss the matter. However, Mr.Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought time only for the purpose of seeking instructions from the client to withdraw the matter and therefore, this court instead of dismissing the writ petition granted time to Mr.Pathan on this count only. Hence, the matter is listed today for withdrawal of the petition . Mr.C.S.Kaptan, another learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that he is not aware of the earlier development and therefore, unable to throw any light on the said aspect. In the instant case, the matter was already heard on merits by this court on the earlier occasion and after hearing both the sides this court wanted to dismiss the wit petition on the ground that the work order has already been issued and the amount of security deposit was returned to the petitioner, which was also accepted by the petitioner. Mr.Pathan, learned counsel, at this stage requested this court not to dismiss the petition and permit him to make a statement for 3 withdrawal of the petition on the next date of hearing after obtaining instructions in this regard from the petitioner and therefore, the court did not dismiss the petition on 2/3/2009. When the matter is called out today, another counsel Mr.Kaptan appeared in the matter and wanted to argue the matter on merits. In the backdrop of the above referred circumstances, we are of the view that we cannot once again permit the learned counsel to argue the matters on merits merely because there is a change in counsel, and this court after hearing the matter on merits expressed its opinion to dismiss the same on 2/3/2009. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute