1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3141 OF 2009 Saint Ramdas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Devde Hadgaon, Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna, through its Secretary, Sow Lata w/o Dashrath Devde, Age : 32 years, Occ. Household and Social work, resident of Devde Hadgaon, Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education, Pune 3. Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad 4. The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr M.S. Taur, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, AGP for respondents no.1 to 3. 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.1 to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner society for starting a Senior College at village Ranjani, Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna, which according to the petitioner is pending since 27.10.2007. 3. The petitioner claims to have submitted a proposal pursuant to an invitation issued by the respondents for opening of a Senior College at village Ranjani, Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna for the academic year 2008-2009. According to the petitioner he submitted his proposal on 27.10.2007 and deposited the requisite fees of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner contends that despite the passage of time the proposal 3 of the petitioner has not been decided. The learned A.G.P. Shri K.G. Patil, for want of instructions, is not in a position to confirm if the proposal has in fact been received and whether the proposal has been decided. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. Since the proposal is said to be pending, we direct respondent no.1 to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if the respondent no.1 has received the said proposal and the said proposal is pending, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] //Authenticated copy// (A.M. Joshi), Pvt. Secretary to Honourable Judge