1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3188 OF 2008 (Harsha Maheshkumar Khandelwar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. OCTOBER 07, 2009. Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 are served with notice for engagement of another counsel. Notice of Petitioner No.4 is received back as at the the given time his shop was found closed. Petitioner No. 5 was not found residing at the said address and petitioner No. 9 could not be served as his address is insufficient. Though some of the petitioners are served, they have chosen not to appear. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 3 point out that the petitioners wanted that all aspirants for admission to M. Pharm Courts could appear for CET examination. Respondent No.4 – Pravesh Niyantran Samiti in the meanwhile took a decision in their favour and hence all aspirants from academic year were supposed to appear for said examination. In any case, admissions for M. Pharm in 2008-09 are already over and academic year 2009-10 is 2 going on. The learned counsel for the respondents states that some of the petitioners have lost interest in the matter. It is also informed that some of them have taken admission in the year 2008-09. In the circumstances, we find that the petitioners are not interested in the present petition. Hence, we dismiss the present petition for want of prosecution. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.