1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4088 OF 2001. Dr.Sharad D.Bhat - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** None for Petitioner; Mr.DV Tele,AGP for Respondent No.1-State; None for Resp.Nos. 2 and 3. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1) None for petitioner as well as for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard learned AGP, who points out the prayers made by the petitioner in this petition. We reproduce the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition, as under : “(A) Rule be issued; (B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 to produce the record and proceeding of the Enquiry of the petitioner conducted on 29-3-2000 by 2 the respondent no.2 and 3 at Jalgaon; (C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of debarring the petitioner from acting as Examiner up to 31-12-2002, taken by the Managing Council of the respondent no.2 and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 30-8-2000 issued by the respondent no.3.” 2) It appears from prayer clause (C), as aforesaid, that the petitioner was debarred from acting as an Examiner for stipulated period .e. upto 31-12-2002. The said decision of debarring the petitioner is assailed in this writ petition. 3) We have seen the order passed by this Court on 29th April, 2002, whereby Rule has been issued by this Court, making it returnable on 31st July, 2002 at 2.15 p.m. Suffice to note that no interim relief was granted by this Court. We have also seen the order dated 27th March, 2006, passed by this Court in CA No.1338/2005, whereby the prayer for interim relief was rejected since it was amounting to grant of final relief and accordingly the said CA was rejected. The hearing of the writ petition was adjourned to 16th March, 2007 by way of last chance at the request of the petitioner. Thereafter on 25th March, 2009, again the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned at the request of the petitioner. On 30th March, 3 2009, this Court recorded that none appears for petitioner and, therefore, the hearing of the petition was adjourned to 31st March, 2009 by way of last chance. Thereafter on 1st April, 2009, the matter was adjourned to 6th April, 2009 at the request of the learned counsel for petitioner. 4) In our view, this petition has become infructuous. Therefore, there is no point in keeping this petition pending, especially when none appears for the petitioner. 5) The writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/