Swargiya Vithoba Dewaji Bawane Guruji Smriti Vrisharopan Sawardhan Thr. Its President v. State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Ministry Of Education, Mumbai And ORS

2704caw799.15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Civil Application (caw) No. 799 of 2015 (In W.P. No. 2872/12 [D]) Swargiya vithoba Dewaji Bawne Guruji Smriti Vriksharopan, Sawardhan Shikshan Sanstha, Gadchiroli v.

State of Maharashtra & ors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari & S.B. Shukre, JJ.

Date : 27th April, 2015.

Heard Advocate Patil for the petitioner. Learned AGP appears for respondents 1 and 2. He points out that W.P. No. 2872/12 was disposed of on 4.7.2012. Later W.P. No. 4435/14 is also disposed of on 18.9.2014. In view of this, he does not have necessary papers to assist the Court. 2.

We have perused the orders dated 4.7.2012 in W.P. No. 2872/12 and 18.9.2014 in W.P. No. 4435/14.

3.

Advocate Patil has pointed out that on 4.7.2012 this Court directed respondent no. 2 to take decision on the proposal pending with it expeditiously. Respondent no. 2 has accordingly processed the matter and

2704caw799.15 placed the said matter for further consideration of State Government and as the State Government did not take any action in reasonable time, W.P. No. 4435 of 2014 was filed.

4.

After perusal of the orders mentioned supra and after hearing Advocate Patil, we find that W.P. No. 4435/14 was only for the purpose of issuing a direction to the State Government to expeditiously decide the proposal received by it from respondent no. 2. This Court then found that second writ petition for the very same purpose was not maintainable. Hence, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking modification in the order dated 4.7.2014 in W.P. No. 2872/12. 5.

We accordingly direct respondent no. 1 to decide the proposal submitted to it by respondent no. 2 as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to it.

With these directions, civil application is disposed of. No costs. Judge Judge /TA/