1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.199 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12218 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3142 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Coram: S. B. Deshmukh and Shrihri P. Davare, JJ. Date : 18.10.2010 1. We have heard Shri N.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Shri D.S.Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. After hearing the matter for some time, Shri N.L.Chaudhary, learned Counsel for appellant, took us through paragraph No.4 of the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. According to him, 2 the points which were raised in Writ Petition were, in fact, argued before the learned Single Judge, but in paragraph 4 of his order, the learned Single Judge has dealt with only one point i.e. approval not being granted by the Education Officer and that issue is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in 2007 (1) B.C.R. 540, Ulai High School, through its Principal and another vs. Devendraprasd Jagannath Singh. 3. Shri V.D.Sapkal, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, drew our attention to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Paint Employees Union vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 599, and particularly to paragraph 28 and 29 thereof. According to learned Counsel Shri Sapkal, happening before the learned Single Judge, if wrongly recorded, the party aggrieved or willing some correction to be made in the recording, may approach the same court. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have 3 carefully gone through paragraphs 28 and 29 of the said judgment of the Division Bench in Paint Employees Union (supra), wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249, is also referred. 5. Shri N.L.Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the appellant, in the aforesaid background and on instructions, seeks to withdraw this letters patent appeal with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge who has passed the impugned order. Shri V.D.Sapkal and Shri D.S.Bagul, have no objection, in case Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. 6. We have noticed the date of the impugned order, which is 15.9.2009. We make it clear that issue of limitation, if any, may be considered by the learned Single Judge concerned. 4 7. Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty in favour of the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge who has passed the impugned order dated 15.9.2009. 8. In view of withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal, civil application does not survive and hence, the same stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Authenticated copy of this order permitted to the parties on their request and on following usual procedure. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) (S.B.Deshmukh, J.) pnd/lpa199.10.