1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5505 of 2008 Ganesh Mahadev Shinde ..... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.M.B.Gawade, for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 8. Shri S.R.Arte, for respondent Nos.9 to 15 and 17. None for respondent No.16. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 29th June, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner is a project affected person on account of the land owned by the petitioner’s family admeasuring about 25.5 Hector being acquired for Dahiwadi Irrigation Tank. The petitioner has been issued a certificate to that effect. The petitioner has been applying for being appointed as a project affected person from the year 2003 to the concerned Collectorate. It is the case of the petitioner in the above petition that the respondent Nos.9 to 17 have been appointed in violation of the policy applicable to the project affected persons, as contained in the various Government Circulars, especially Circular dated 13-09-2000, as also Government Circular dated 23-10-2002, which mandate that a 2 particular procedure in respect of the appointment of the Project affected persons is required to be followed. By way of amendment, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the said respondent Nos.9 to 17. During the pendency of the above petition, Principal Secretary, GAD, was directed to submit report in respect of the appointment of Mr.Hiparge, respondent No.16. Accordingly, the report has been submitted and reading of the said report, discloses that the appointment of Mr.Hiparge, was prima facie found to be irregular by the Principal Secretary, GAD. In fact, it has been observed in the said report that the genuineness or authenticity of the application of Mr.Hiparge, dated 19-08-2000, appears to be highly suspicious. 2. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is seeking his appointment as a project affected person with the State Government, as also considering the fact that the petitioner is also seeking to challenge the appointments of respondent Nos.9 to 17 and considering the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in our view, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for claiming the said reliefs. The petitioner would be entitled to rely upon the documents annexed to the above petition as well as the report dated 05-06-2009 submitted by the Principal Secretary, GAD, in that behalf. Since the petitioner was prosecuting the petition in this Court from 04-01-2008, in the event the 3 question of limitation arises, the Tribunal would give due consideration to the aforesaid fact and decide the issue of limitation accordingly. With the aforesaid observations, we allow the petitioner to withdraw the above petition, with a liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, for seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Notice discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )