JUDGMENT : With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the order passed in present case dated 26.4.2012 was challenged by the petitioner in WA No. 307/12. The said WA was decided on 21.6.2012. 3. A bare perusal of last paragraph of the order shows that the appeal was disposed of with a short direction that in case the ground relating to maintainability of writ petition is raised by respondents No. 3 & 4 in the subsequent petition (W.P.3688/12), then the same shall be decided by the Court after taking into account the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty without getting impressed by the order dated 26.4.2012. 4. In view of aforesaid, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that the observation of Division Bench with regard to liberty to raise the point in subsequent petition, i.e., W.P.3688/12 does not mean that WP 2839/12 is restored. I am satisfied with the said contention. There appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the Registry and, therefore, this WP is listed before this Court. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of in view of the order dated 26.4.2012 and order of Writ Appeal dated 21.6.2012.