{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2009 Ashvamedh Arts Foundation, Avhane Tq & Dist-Jalgaon Sanchalit Gurudev Gurukul English Medium School, Mohinde Tq-Chopda, Dist-Jalgoan Through its Secretary Shri.Vishal s/o Trambak Patil Age-34 years, Occ-Service R/o Avhane, Tq & Dist Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai 2, The Education Officer (Primary) DELETED Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 is deleted ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 6th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 1. At the outset, Ms.Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent No.2. Leave granted. Deletion be carried out forthwith at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition, the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner for starting a primary (English Medium) school by name “Gurudev Gurukul, Mohinde Tq-Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon”. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is pending consideration. We are not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause “B” to the petition. However, it is stated before us, by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposal submitted by the petitioner on 12.05.2008 is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the proposal came to be submitted to respondent No.1 through respondent No.2, therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is not a necessary party whose presence is essential for deciding the {3} present petition. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner claims that the proposal is pending, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly allow this petition by directing respondent No.1 to decide the proposal of the petitioner dated 12.05.2008, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 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. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6644-09