1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1090/2011 ( Dnyan Prabodhini Gramin Vikas Seva Bhavi Sanstha & others ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra & others ) With Writ Petition No.1091/2011 ( Sati Mata Shikshan Sanstha and others ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. F.T. Mirza, Adv. for petitioners. Mr. A.G. Mujumdar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.P. BHANGALE JJ. DATE : 3 . 3 . 2011 . Common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners run societies which are registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as well as Public Trust Act and the petitioners are managing/running various diploma level courses after getting the proper permission from the 2 respondent/State. It is further contended that the final permission to run these courses was granted by the respondent no.1 and the same was not restricted to any academic session and was in the nature of final grant. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that by the notification dated 11th February 2011, issued by the respondent no.2, based on the Government Resolution dated 26th February 2010, requires that the institution to whom the permission was granted to run these technical courses are required to make an appropriate application for extension of such permission. It is submitted that the petitioners were granted the final permission and therefore, this clause is not attracted. The learned A.G.P. has submitted that as per the said clause of the notification, if the permission to run the technical courses granted to the institution prior to 2010-2011 and if the extension regarding the grant of permission is necessary, in such circumstances, those institutions are required to submit the application to the State Government for grant of extension in this regard and if the petitioners do not fall within this category, the petition is premature. It is submitted that even otherwise if the action according to the said Government Resolution is required to taken, it would be taken in accordance with law. 3 In the backdrop of the above referred facts and in view of the categorical statement made by the learned A.G.P., it is evident that action if taken against the petitioners, same would be in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and therefore, no case is made out for showing indulgence. We dispose of writ petitions by keeping the issues open. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.