Rajesh Shrawanji Bokade. v. Mah.S.R.T.C.And Another.

WP1701-01 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1701/2001 (RAJESH SHRAVANJI BOKADE VERSUS M.S.R.T.C. & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.N. Tapadia h/f Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 7 , 2015.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected by the scrutiny committee, the counsel had asked the petitioner vide communication dated 14.07.2015 whether the petitioner is interested in challenging the order of the scrutiny committee or wants to seek the protection of his services. It is submitted that though the petitioner has received the said communication that was sent by Speed Post Acknowledgment Due, the petitioner has not instructed the counsel in the matter. It is submitted that though the petitioner was contacted telephonically and the petitioner stated that he would attend the office of the counsel to give necessary instructions, the petitioner has not contacted. It is stated that in this background, the counsel is not in a position to gauge whether the petition is required to be argued for challenging the order of the scrutiny committee or whether only the protection is desired by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE JUDGE APTE