1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3197 of 1996 Rahul Vasantrao Warke and another VERSUS Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C. S. Kaptan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : JULY 14, 2011. Mr. Kavimandan, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the learned counsel for the petitioners is not aware of the subsequent development and inspite of issuance of several communications to the petitioners, the petitioners have not responded. Mr. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner no.1 has been promoted and he is presently working as an Executive Engineer. It seems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition as by this petition, the petitioner had challenged the advertisement, dated 22/9/1994 and it may be possible that the cause for filing the writ petition may have been rendered infructuous due to passage of time. 2 Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale