1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 1991 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3173 OF 1994 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4439 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIONNO. 5267 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5958 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1422 OF 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4131 OF 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5467 OF 1996 Usman s/o Hussain Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. None for the petitioner Mr. R.R. Lodh h/f Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, advocate for respondents 5 to 7 in civil application No. 4131 of 1996. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for applicant in C.A. No. 5267 of 1995. ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 8TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard Mr. Bedre, learned counsel for the applicants in civil application No. 5267 of 1995. Perused the contents of the civil application. 2 Civil application is disposed of in terms of prayer clause “B”. 2 Mr. Bedre, further submitted that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1995, praying for similar relief. He has tendered a copy of the suit filed by the petitioner, the same is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. 3 The writ petition was listed for hearing on 5.1.2010, when none appeared for the petitioner. Again the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioner to conduct the matter. The matters was called out on 7.1.2010. On that day also none appeared for the petitioner. Again the matter was adjourned to today to enable the counsel for the petitioner to conduct the matter. Today, learned counsel Mr. Bedre, appearing for one of the respondent submitted that the petition was filed through Advocate Mrs. A.N. Ansari. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have taken no objection from Mrs. Ansari in 1995 itself and papers are also returned to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner appeared in person in 1999. Though several opportunities are granted to the petitioner, the matter is not argued by him in person or by any of the counsel. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 3 4. In view of dismissal of main writ petition, civil applications, as quoted above, do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly. ( S.S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/