1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5297/2009 (National Women's Welfare Society, Darwha ..V/s.. The State of Maharashtra & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.R. Johrapurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 17 th MARCH , 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 to 4. In the instant case the petitioner has applied for grant of permission to start the junior college pursuant to the advertisement dated 29/4/2008 issued by the respondent no.4. It is submitted that the application/proposal of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the circular dated 9/5/2008 one of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant-Society should have bank balance of Rs.1,00,000/- on the 2 date of application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposal of the petitioner-Society came to be rejected by impugned communication dated 28/10/2008 on the ground that the petitioner-Society did not have bank balance of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of submission of application. It is contended that the petitioner along with the application had annexed fixed deposit receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- which was in the name of the petitioner-society, however, the petitioner- society was required to have Rs.1,00,000/- in the bank and therefore, the application came to be rejected. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation against the impugned communication to respondent no.1. We are granting this liberty to the petitioner because the petitioner along with the application had annexed the fixed deposit receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- which was in the name of the petitioner-society as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If such representation is made by the petitioner, we direct the competent authority to consider the same in accordance with law on its own merits within a 3 period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Steno copy is allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.