( 1 ) wp8882.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8882 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o. Manohar Biradar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATED : 25.02.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this writ petition, the elections of respondent No.6-Society have been declared and in view thereof he does not press prayer clause (C) in the writ petition. Insofar as prayer clauses (B) & (D) are concerned, he seeks liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.4-District Supply Officer, for appropriate action against respondent Nos.5 to 7 with direction to consider their complaint/representation within time frame. ( 2 ) wp8882.10 2. Having considered overall facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the following order would meet ends of justice. However, we make it clear that we have not examined merits of the allegations made by the petitioners against these respondents. i. It is open to the petitioner to make representation for appropriate relief/action against respondent Nos. 5,6 & 7 within a period of four weeks from today. If the petitioners make such representation to respondent No.4, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. 3. While passing the order, we shall not be understood to have issued any direction to respondent No.4, touching merits of the case. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] snk/2011/FEB11/wp8882.10