1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2805 OF 2009 Dnyanoba s/o Ramdas Barsale, Age : 55 years, Occ.Service, R/o C/o Vaibhav Provisions, Besides Lakkad Kot, Jintur Road, Vidya Nagar, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing and Textile, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani 3. The Liquidator, Godavari Dudhna Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Devnandra, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.A. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, AGP for respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3, Liquidator, to decide the representations filed by the petitioner dated 24.1.2007 and 7.11.2008. The petitioner has prayed for further directions, which according to us cannot be granted at the moment in the light of the pendency of the representations. 3. According to the petitioner on the aforesaid dates the petitioner had submitted representations taking exception to the demand of an amount of Rs. 94,000/- from the salary of the petitioner as the petitioner was shown as one of the guarantors to the guarantee of the Contractor. Since the limited request of the petitioner is for directing the respondent no.3 to decide the said representation, we refrain from commenting upon the facts of the case as it is likely to prejudice the various contentions which are raised by the petitioner in this petition. 4. We have heard Shri B.A. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. Shri K.G. Patil, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents no. 3 1 to 3. We, therefore, direct respondent no.3 to decide the said representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law, if pending, as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than six weeks from today. Learned AGP undertakes to communicate this order to respondent no.3. 5. Since we have not adjudicated on any of the issues involved in this petition and the contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition, all the contentions are kept open. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp2805.09 4