1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3484 OF 2009 (Ms. Sharda Shalikram Gadhwe and others ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Shashikant Borkar, Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.S. Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 9 th JUNE, 2010 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. None appears for the remaining respondents though served. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the third respondent i.e. Social Welfare Officer, Gat-A, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara to sanction the proposals of the petitioners forwarded by respondent/Institute. The petitioners have stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that their proposals for sanction were forwarded long back. In this paragraph the petitioners have made reference to the letter dated 16-10-2007 of respondent No.3 addressed to respondent No.2 (Annexure No.3), wherein it is mentioned that the proposals of the petitioners were received by him. Since respondent Nos. 3 & 5 are not coming forward, it would not be possible to appreciate the contentions urged in the writ petition and to issue direction to respondent No.3 to “sanction” the proposals of the 2 petitioners. However, keeping in view the controversy raised and considering the written submissions filed on behalf of respondent No.4, we are satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of by passing the following order :- Respondent No.3 shall consider the proposals of the petitioners forwarded by respondent/Institute as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.3 shall decide the proposals of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. While passing this order we shall not be understood to have issued any direction to respondent No.3 either to sanction or to reject the proposals of the petitioners. Respondent No.3 shall also hear the petitioners and respondents/Institutes so as to find out whether the proposals of the petitioners as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are genuine. Respondent No.3 may also examine whether the petitioners are in fact working with respondent/Institute while considering the proposals of the petitioners. All contentions are kept open. With this observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE pma