1 appw-80-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Ashok Vishwanath Shegar .. Respondent Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Spl. Counsel with Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for applicant – State. Ms. Pooja Thorat i/by Mr. V. M. Thorat for respondent. Mr. Raju Moray i/by Mr. Amit Sale for respondent nos.4 and 6 in Cri. W.P. No. 2546/08. Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent no.5 in Cri. W.P. No. 2546/08. Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masin for respondent no.7 in Cri.W.P. No. 2546/08. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. March 18, 2011. P.C. 1. Pursuant to the orders passed by us in this application from time to time, Shri Mahesh Pathak, Secretary in the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, filed an affidavit on 2 appw-80-10 11/12/2010 and a subsequent affidavit on 29/1/2011, along with the calculation of financial loss caused to the Government or the Institutions. 2. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the report dated 8/9/2009 submitted by the Principal Secretary and which has been accepted by us vide our order dated 11/9/2009, while disposing off Criminal Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2008, has been now sought to be disputed in as much as the teachers appointed in the technical schools are governed by contractual appointments and not under the Shikshan Sevak Scheme. The learned counsel for the respondents contend that the report dated 8/9/2009 submitted by the Principal Secretary could not have been disputed or any way doubted and the financial loss ought to have been calculated only on the basis of that report so as to take further action against the officers concerned as well as other parties. 3. As far as this application is concerned, we have already noted that it has become infructuous and, therefore, if any of the respondents have any grievance on the subsequent reports submitted by Shri Mahesh Pathak, they may have their independent remedy and in this application 3 appw-80-10 filed by the State, such a grievance cannot be addressed to. 4. Hence, the application is disposed as infructuous with liberty to all the aggrieved parties in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2008 to take appropriate steps. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)