19-WP-110-2011.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2011 Ashok Infrastructure Limited ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents **** None for the Petitioner. Ms. A.A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar i/b Dr. Uday P Warunjikar for the Respondent No.7. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026 P.C. : 1. None for the Petitioner. 2. Petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the District Judge-7, Pune below Exhs. 21, 22 and 23 in proceedings filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the said Act’ for short). The applications below Exh. 21,22 and 23 were filed by 3rd persons claiming to be affected by orders that may be passed in the proceedings. By the impugned order, the applications of 3rd party were allowed and the Petitioner was directed to implead them. 3. Record shows that on 10.01.2012, the petition was admitted by granting Rule, however, the impugned order was not stayed, but earlier interim order permitting the Petitioner to collect toll was continued. On the same day, hearing of Section 9 application was Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.08.25 20:15:14 +0530 19-WP-110-2011.doc expedited and the learned District Judge was directed to hear and dispose of the application in a time bound manner. 4. Recently on 29.06.2026, following order was passed: “1. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has taken back the case papers and as such he has no instructions. 2. Nobody is appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 3. Issue notice to the Petitioner, returnable on 20.07.2026. 4. In the meantime, Advocate for the Respondents to take instructions as to whether the hearing of Misc. Application before the District Court at Pune (which was expedited under earlier order of this Court) is disposed of and if disposed, produce a copy." 5. Today, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 has placed on record a copy of the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by District Judge-8, Pune by which the application under Section 9 (C.M.A.No. 865/2010) itself is disposed of. A copy of the said order is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 6. Considering that main proceedings have come to an end, the challenge in the petition to the interlocutory order permitting impleadment, has become infructuous. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of as infrustuous. Interim/ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 2