← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10417/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha Gautam Nagar Through Its President S B Bhamre And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-08-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre3 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10393 OF 2017 Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhai Sanstha, Gautam Nagar, Walwadi, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, Through its President Sanjay Bhavan Bhambre, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Gautam Nagar, Gondur Road, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule & ors ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr G.R. Syed, Advocate for petitioners;

Mrs Vaishali N. Patil-Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondents

VERSUS

WRIT PETITION NO.10417 OF 2017 Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhai Sanstha, Gautam Nagar, Walwadi, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, Through its President Sanjay Bhavan Bhambre, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Gautam Nagar, Gondur Road, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule & ors ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

(2) Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr G.R. Syed, Advocate for petitioners;

Mr V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for respondents CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2017 ORAL ORDER :

After arguing the matter for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the writ petitions, with liberty to the petitioners to submit detailed representation with supporting documents before respondent No. 2 on the basis of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashtramata Jijajau Sevabhavi Sanstha Rami, Tq. Sindhkhed, Dist. Dhule vs State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1940 of 2016 decided on 19th December, 2016.

2.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petitions are allowed to be withdrawn.

(3) 3.

In case, the petitioners submit representation as aforesaid, respondent No.2 is expected to consider and take appropriate decision on it, in accordance with law, expeditiously. 4.

Needless to say that, we have not commented on the merits of the matter and petitioners' entitlement.

5.

Writ Petitions are disposed of.

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.) Tupe