1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3412 OF 2009 Giriraj Enterprises, Registered Partnership Firm, having its office at Malpani House, I.G.Road, Sangamner – 422 605, District Ahmednagar, Through its Partner, Mr.Manish Madhav Malpani, Age Major, Occu.Business, R/o Malpani House, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Home Department (Tourism), Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Secretary, Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 3. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Limited, A registered Corporation, Through its Managing Director & Having its Registered Office at Express Towers, 9th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 21 .. Respondents Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 Shri A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 29th JULY 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri A.S.Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Jadhav on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Shri A.R.Borulkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondent No.3 to decide the application/representation of the petitioner dated 31.3.2005. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue eligibility certificate under the “New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism Projects July 2000 to March 2005” and The Tourism Policy-2006” in favour of the petitioner for the water park at Shirdi. However, since the application/representation of the petitioner is pending, according to us, the petitioner would not be 3 entitled for the relief prayed for at prayer clause (C) at this stage. The petitioner may, if advised file appropriate proceedings after the decision of the representation in respect of the relief at prayer clause (C) to the petition. 4. Since the application/representation of the petitioner is pending since 31.3.2005, we direct the authorities to expeditiously decide the said representation. Any deficiencies in the application to be cured and rectified by the petitioner within three weeks from today and after the petitioner removes the deficiencies noticed in the application, respondent No.2 to decide the said application dated 31.3.2005, in accordance with law, within period of three months from the removal of the deficiencies and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3412.2009wp)