1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 6000/2010. Dr. Subhashdada Vidarbha Gramin Vikas Bahuddeshiya Sanstha -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 07.06.2011. 1. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jickhar, the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri S.K. Mishra, the learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.5. 2. Petitioner submitted his proposal for claiming grant-in-aid to respondent nos. 1 to 4 on 30.06.2008. That proposal reached respondent no.5 in January, 2010 and it has been considered 2 by the Screening Committee of respondent no.5 on 27.05.2010. After finding that the necessary statement of accounts/details were not furnished, the Screening Committee rejected that proposal. 3. According to Shri Kilor, the learned Counsel for petitioner, the documents like accounts, available till 20.06.2008 were already furnished and as the financial year 2008-09 was then current, the statement of accounts in relation to year could not be furnished. He states that if the petitioner is given opportunity, the petitioner can supply all the requisite documents and furnish necessary details. 4. According to Shri Mishra, the learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.5, the proposal has been received in January, 2010 and has been processed accordingly. He further points out to the Court that original documents were not accompanying the proposal and respondent no.5 has received only photo-stat copies. 3 5. Shri Jichkar, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 states that after necessary verification the office of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has forwarded the proposal to respondent no.5. 6. Shri Kilor, the learned Counsel in reply states that non receipt of the original documents is not the reason given for rejection of the proposal of petitioner. 7. We do not find necessary to go into further details of the matter. The receipt of proposal of 2008 is not in dispute and the proposal therefore, needed to be looked into in accordance with law. The time taken by the machinery of respondent nos. 1 to 4 to verify and to forward it to respondent no.5, cannot be used to the prejudice of the petitioner. Similarly, respondent no.5 cannot be blamed, as it has received the proposal itself in the month of January, 2010. 8. In this situation, interest of justice can 4 be met with by permitting the petitioner to supply all the relevant documents in original along with the statement of accounts till 31.03.2011 to respondent no.5 on or before 31.07.2011. If such documents and details are received by respondent no.5, respondent no.5 shall reapply its mind to the proposal of petitioner in accordance with law, and take a decision on the same, as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2011. While reconsidering such proposal, the rejection in meeting held on 27.05.2010 shall not come in the way of respondent no.5. 9. With these directions and observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd