← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3431/2020allowed

Sandip S/O Ramrao Uppod v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Special Assistance, Mumbai

2020-12-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3431 OF 2020 1.Sandip s/o. Ramrao Uppod, Aged 31 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Vitthalwadi, State Bank Chowk, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

2.Rahul s/o. Ramchandraji Lawhale, Aged 29 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Vitthalwadi, State Bank Chowk, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

3.Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar Education Society, Wardha, through its President, Dinesh Baliramji Sawai, having its Office at Savanghi Meghe Road, Wardha, District Wardha.

.......... PETITIONERS // VERSUS // 1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra, 6, Church Road, Pune-1.

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra. Amravati Division, Amravati.

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

5.Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Camp, Amravati, District Amravati. .......... RESPONDENTS ____________________________________________________________ Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 16.12.2020.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J) :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.R.Patil, learned Assistant

Government Pleader, who waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. There is no need to issue notice to respondent no.5 as no relief is claimed against respondent no.5.

2.

We find that appropriate directions can be issued to respondent no.2 which will suffice the purpose sought to be achieved by this petition.

3.

The petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the proposal dated 6.12.2019 forwarded by respondent no.3 and take a decision on it, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of order. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal]