(1) 911 Cri.WP-1918.2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2019 MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O ABDUL SHUKUR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. F.F. Shirpurkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. U.S. Bhosale, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026. Per Court : 1. Learned Advocate holding for Advocate Mr.Kazi for petitioner seeks time to take instructions. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent no.6 to register an offence regarding black marketing of food grains and the investigation be handed over to Special Task Force or S.I.T. 3. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent no.5, wherein it is stated that after filing of the present petition, the then Tahsildar, Nanded had appointed three enquiry teams under the head of Naib Tahsildars to inquire into the complaints dated 02.02.2019, 04.02.2019 and 06.03.2019 filed by the present petitioner. The said teams initiated the enquiry and issued notices to the fair shop owners and talathis. The Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar and Talathis issued separate notices to the shop owners for separate enquiry regarding the route nominees. The concerned shop owners filed their common reply and explanation to the said notices. The said enquiry was (2) 911 Cri.WP-1918.2019.odt in progress at the time of filing of the affidavit-in-reply. Affidavit-in-reply also states that the State Government vide it's letter dated 11.03.2020 directed respondent no.5 - District Supply Officer to investigate the matter in detail and file report immediately. 4. By this time, the enquiry must have been concluded and the report must have been filed by the District Supply Officer. 5. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the Writ Petition as the petition is not circulated after the year 2020. The petition is today on board only due to directions of this Court to list the old matters. As the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the petition, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde