Bombay High CourtWP/462/2014dismissedrule discharged

Laxmi Yenpreddiwar Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its President Thr Pho Rupesh K. Yenpreddiwar v. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary And Another

2016-04-05Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

WP462-14 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 462/2014 (LAXMI YENPREDDIWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, MUL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.V. Thakre, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, counsel for the R-1.

Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-2.

CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 5 , 2016.

By this petition, the petitioner-Society seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to grant special assistance in the form of grant-in-aid to the petitioner-Society for running the residential Ashram School for the Scheduled Tribes students at Mul, District Chandrapur with effect from 2002. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the proposal of the petitioner-Society was not received by the respondent no.1 at all though it is the case of the petitioner-Society that the same was submitted in the year 2002. The petition is filed on 13.12.2013. Nothing was done in the matter by the petitioner-Society though the petitioner-Society did not hear anything from the respondents in respect of the proposal for more than eleven years. Mere making of representations would not stop the period of limitation.

If the proposal of the petitioner-Society was not favourably decided within a reasonable time after 2002-03, the petitioner ought to have approached the Court immediately. The petitioner has approached this Court after eleven long years and since the proposal of the petitioner-Society is not received by the respondent no.

WP462-14 no.1 to provide grant-in-aid to the petitioner-Society on the proposal that is allegedly made in the year 2002. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE