Marathwada Banjara Seva Sangha(Mandal), Naiknagar v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2013 EKLAVYA MAGAS SEVA SAMITI, MANKHED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr N. P Patil Jamalpurkar AGP for Respondents: Mr. K G Patil Advocate for Respondents : Mr. V.D. Sapkal WITH WP/1557/2013 SHRIRAM SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL SINDHALA (L)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
...
Mr. N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for petitione Mr. K.G.Patil AGP for Respondent State.
...
WITH WP/1729/2013 NAVJIVAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AMBA TANDA TQ. KANNAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
...
Mr. Sanjaykumar Chavan advocate for petitioner Mr. K.G.Patil AGP for Respondents.
...
WITH WP/1749/2013 MARATHWADA BAJNARA SEVA SANGH (MANDAL) NAIKNAGAR, AURANGABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Mr. B.N.Patil advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Patil AGP for Respondent State.
...
WITH
WP/1855/2013 MATOSHREE TULSI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, SILLOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
...
Mr. V.D Sapkal advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K G Patil AGP for Respondent State.
...
WITH WP/2915/2013 PUNAYSHLOK AHILYADEVI JIVAN VIKAS MAHILA MANDAL AHMEDPUR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
...
Mr. S.G.Rudrawar advocate for Petitioner Mr. K.G.Patil AGP for Respondent State.
...
WITH WP/3040/2013 AHILYABAI HOLKAR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL KAREPUR TQ. RENAPUR DIST LATUR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.
...
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Dated: August 21, 2015 ...
PER COURT :- 1.
These petitions challenge suspension of Government Resolution dated 21.01.2013 and Corrigendum dated 24.01.2013. Admittedly, these Government Resolutions promised substantial financial help to petitioners and similarly placed societies who manage petitioners Colleges for V.J.N.T alongwith Ashramshala. Unfortunately, on 8.2.2013, the State of Maharashtra suspended the implementation of this resolution alongwith Corrigendum. Reason for this is given that, it would cause burden on Government exchequer and that Finance Department's
concurrence was not obtained. Since, suspension occurred within two weeks, petitioners and similarly placed societies would not face substantial loss and prejudice. Nonetheless, promised help should come to the concerned after obtaining concurrence of Finance Department. Incident is of 2013. We are now in 2015. We expect the Government of Maharashtra to take decision on the fate of Resolution dated 21.1.2013 alongwith Corrigendum as early as possible and we direct them to do so within ONE YEAR from today.
2.
Writ Petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( A V NIRGUDE, J. ) aaa/-