1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.844 OF 2010 Sadashiv S. Patil & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Rajaram G. Patil ....Respondent Mr.M.S. Topkar for the Petitioners. Mr.N.A. Kulkarni with Ms.Sangeeta Deo for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard finally. 2. There is no dispute that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not concerned with the dispute and they have not been responsible for the alleged non-implementation of the order. Thus the impugned order to the extent that it issues the process against Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is quashed and set-aside. 3. There is however, no cause for quashing the process against Petitioner No.1 at this stage. This clarification is necessary in view of what has allegedly transpired after the order dated 31.1.2006 of which non- implementation is alleged. Mr.Topkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners stated that thereafter a departmental enquiry was held against the Respondent and that he was dismissed. The Respondent 2 has challenged the dismissal by filing a complaint being Complaint (U.L.P.) No.11 of 2008 before the same Court. It is not necessary to consider the effect of these subsequent developments in the present Petition. The Petitioners shall be at liberty to make a fresh application before the Labour Court or any other applications in accordance with law based thereon. The contentions of the parties are kept open and shall not be affected in any manner by either this order or by the impugned order. 4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.