1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7971 OF 2009 1) Dharma @ Dharmsingh Bonda Padvi, 2) Damnya Mithya Padvi, 3) Divalya Parshi Padvi, 4) Rama Gimbya Padvi, 5) Dilip Dharmsingh Padvi, 6) Satiram @ Sotya Navasa Padvi, 7) Honji Kadgya Valvi, 8) Shirsha @ Birsingh Bhura Padvi, 9) Rasha navasa Vasave, 10) Kangadya Tembarya Padvi, 11) Ramesh Parashi Vasave, 12) Vankar Handya Padvi, 13) Tapsingh Karma Vasave, 14) Shiva Bava Padvi (Since deceased) Through his L.R. Kuvarsingh Bava Padvi, 15) Divalya Tembarya Vasave, 16) Sunil Dajala Padvi, 17) Amarsingh Khema Padvi, 2 18) Jethya Aathya Vasave, All R/o-Village Wadibar, Post-Molagi, Tq-Akkalkuwa, District-Nandurbar. Except Petitioenr No.12 R/o-Village Walamba, Tq-Akkalkuwa, Dist-Nandurbar, And Petitioner No.13 R/o-Ratanpada, Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, 3) The Collector, Nandurbar, District-Nandurbar, 4) The Tahsildar, Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar, 5) Shri. Kisan Maktya Valvi, Secretary of Forest Rights Committee of village Retpada, Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.A.G. Magare Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... 3 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioners have filed application/ proposal through proper channel. That proposal was submitted to Respondent No.4 who is Tahsildar of Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar. The said officer was expected to forward the proposal to Respondent No. 5 - the Secretary of Forest Rights Committee of village Retpada, Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar. It is asserted in the Petition that the application dated 15th April, 2008 has been processed and placed before the Secretary of Forest Rights Committee, who in turn was expected to decide the 4 same in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within reasonable time. However, he has not examined the application nor communicated any decision thereon to the Petitioners till now. 3. In this situation, we have no hesitation in acceding to the limited request of the Petitioners which is made in this Petition, to issue direction to Respondent No.5 to decide the Petitioners application dated 15th April, 2008 in accordance with law on its own merits. The Respondent No.5, however, shall ensure that the decision taken by him is communicated to the Petitioners not later than three months from today and submit compliance report in the Registry of this Court. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp7971.09