(1.) THE High Court's Order against which this appeal is preferred directed for the appellant's ejectment from the land forming the subject-matter of the writ petition. THE appellant came to this Court making the grievance that the order was passed in a public interest litigation and it went beyond the relief claimed in the writ petition. Though leave was granted for filing appeal, this Court did not pass any interim order in the appellant's favour. On notice being issued, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that, in pursuance of the High Court's direction, the appellant was dispossessed from the disputed land (which happens to be a forest land) and the State has resumed its possession.
(2.) WHEN the case was called out, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, who is the Advocate-on-record, filed an interlocutory application for his discharge from this case. In the discharge application it is stated that on receipt of a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, he sought further instructions from the appellant or his son, but he never received any response from them. The relevant extract from the application for discharge is reproduced below: