1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6348 OF 2010 Sonali d/o Dyanoba Somvanshi, Age : 21 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Balaji Nagar, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Council of Examination, Pune. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate h/f Shri B. K. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner makes oral motion for amending the petition for incorporating a relief of directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2010. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that, the petitioner does not press to the reliefs at prayer clauses "C" and "D" to the petition, but claims liberty to pray for the said reliefs in the event the representation of the petitioner is decided against the petitioner. This writ petition therefore, stands dismissed in respect of prayer clauses "C" and "D" to the petition with the liberty as prayed for. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Since the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ 3 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2010, according to us, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the present case. Suffice it to state that the said representation was forwarded by the petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. However, the authority competent to decide the said representation is respondent No. 3. Shri Bondar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 states that within two weeks from today the said representation would be forwarded by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2. We therefore, direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the said representation, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks of receipt of the same from the respondent No. 3 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10