Rajaram Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Vasur Through Its Secretary v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others

1 WP / 6573 / 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 58 WRIT PETITION NO.6573 OF 2023 RAJARAM BAHUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA VASUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Chapule h/f. Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. A.S. Shinde ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 19 JUNE 2023 PC :

Heard.

2.

The petitioner which is a society running a child care home and was issued with a requisite permission under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2010 is now awaiting renewal of the licence / permit from the respondent - authorities under the successor Act of the year 2015. The proposal seems to be pending with the respondents no. 2 and 4 since the year 2019. 3.

We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as also the learned AGP.

2 WP / 6573 / 2023 4.

It does appear that the petitioner's proposal is still pending with the respondents. There is enough record to demonstrate that some objections were raised which were duly attempted to be complied with. Even the proposal in that respect was submitted by the respondent no. 4 still no final decision has been taken. 5.

In writ petition no. 7821 of 2021 in the matter of Mother Teresa Balakashram V. State of Maharashtra and others by the order dated 08-09-2022, in similar set of facts, and considering the provisions of the old and the new Act, for the elaborate reasons therein this Court had directed the respondents to consider, even extending an opportunity to comply with the shortcomings and to take a final decision expeditiously. In our considered view similar course deserves to be adopted even in the present matter.

6.

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no. 2 - Commissioner and clear the shortcomings pointed out by the latter. The latter shall extend sufficient opportunity for such compliance and take a final decision as expeditiously as possible within 12 weeks of petitioner's appearance before him.

7.

Writ petition is disposed of.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/