1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4220/2009 ( Walmik Fisheries Co-operative Society, Belgaon ..V/s.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 19 th APRIL, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.1. Writ petition is directed against the allotment order dated 29/8/2009 issued by the respondent nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent no.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said allotment order is issued in violation of Government Resolution dated 15/10/2001, particularly Clause 2 of the said resolution, which contemplates that if the tank falls within the area of operation of two fishing societies, in that event the procedure required to be followed by the authority while allotting the tank is by way of auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 both have applied for allotment of tank in question, the respondent nos.2 and 3 ought to have followed the procedure stipulated 2 in the Clause 2 of said Government Resolution however, the respondent nos.2 and 3 failed to do so. Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that since the lease of the tank is only for one year and sufficient time has been lapsed therefore, the petitioner does not want to press the writ petition at this stage however, prays that the respondent nos.2 and 3 may be asked to follow the procedure stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 15/10/2001 when the tank in question will be given on lease next time and prays that the issues raised in the present petition may be kept open. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, we dispose of the writ petition by keeping issues open as raised in petition, with the observation that the respondent nos.2 and 3 would follow the procedure stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 15/10/2001 when the tank in question would be allotted next time. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of by keeping issues open as prayed for. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.