1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAW) No. 2970 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 2757 of 2010 Digambar Haribhau Pajgade and others VERSUS Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. M. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3, 7, 8 & 11 Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for the respondent no.6/applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 8, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This civil application is being filed by the respondent no.6 for keeping the petition in abeyance in view of pendency of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23355/2010, wherein the issue, which is involved in this case and is governed by prayer clause (i) of this petition, is involved Mr. A. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners, in such circumstances, would delete the prayer clause (i) and the relief sought by this civil application may not be granted. The petitioners are permitted to delete prayer clause (i). The necessary amendment should be carried out forthwith. 2 In view of deletion of prayer clause (i), there would be no necessity of keeping the petition in abeyance. The civil application stands disposed of. Civil Application (CAW) No. 2703 of 2010 Stand over after two weeks at the request of Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6, for filing reply. Writ Petition No. 2757 of 2010 The matter may be placed before the Registrar for considering, whether the present writ petition should have been registered as a Public Interest Litigation and then place it before the appropriate Bench, accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale