1 646811 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6468 OF 2011 Waghmare Manisha Pralhad & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar with Ms. Ujwala S. Waychal for the Petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Avinash Belge i/by Mr. Nitin Jamdar for Respondent No. 3 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 12TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Nitin Jamdar, advocate-on-record, for respondent No. 3 waive notice for respondents No. 2 and 3. 2 646811 3. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. The counsel appearing for the parties, in all fairness, state that the issue raised is squarely answered in Writ Petition No. 9990 of 2010 (Supriya N. Kale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2011. 5. Accordingly, even this petition succeeds on the same terms. The impugned decision is quashed and set aside, and instead, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, keeping in mind the legal position stated in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tukaram Trimbak Choudhary reported in (2007) 9 S.C.C. 201. The proposal be considered by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, not later than eight weeks from today. 6. This petition is disposed of accordingly. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.