1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7254 OF 2010 ‘Tuljai’ Shikshan Sanstha, 9, ‘Tuljai’, Abhiyanla Nagar, Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, District Jalgaon, through its President Deelip s/o Mukundrao Patil, Age 48 years, Occ. Business R/o as above. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Jalgaon Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 12th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 2 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The proposal of the petitioner for starting Classes from V to VII on account of natural growth came to be submitted to the Education Officer i.e. fourth respondent on 15.3.2001. The aforesaid proposal of the petitioner came to be forwarded by the respondent Education Officer to the respondent No.3 with his favourable recommendation on 23.5.2006. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 forwarded the said proposal to respondent No.2 along with his favourable recommendation. Since then the aforesaid proposal is pending consideration with the respondents. 3. In the light of the pendency of the proposal and in the light of the limited nature of relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, i.e. of issuance of a writ directing the respondents to decide the pending proposal of the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this petition. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in 3 accordance with law, within a period of two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)