{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4683 OF 2009 Pandurang Devrao Kondule & Another PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.F.Patni, Advocate for petitiones Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 20th July 2009 PER COURT: 1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give nourishment programme to respondent No.4 Sugar Factory for starting crushing of sugar cane. Possibly, what is meant by the petitioner by using the phrase “nourishment programme” is to direct the respondent bank to lease the sugar factory instead of selling it outright. 2. Respondent bank had issued a notice under the {2} Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as the respondent factory failed to pay its dues. Thereafter, pursuant to the steps provided for under the Securitisation Act, certain steps have been taken. The petitioners, who are employees and agriculturists, who provide sugar cane for crushing to the sugar factory, by this petition, therefore, pray for directing the respondent bank to extend “nourishment” to the factory. As pointed out by us above, the tenor of the entire petition is that the bank should lease out the factory instead of selling it outright. The bank is the best judge of the events and /or the modus operandi by which it can recover its outstanding dues. 3. However, it is urged before us that a representation came to be submitted by the petitioners to the respondents, particularly, respondent bank pointing out therein the method by which the respondent bank can recover its outstanding dues, without selling the sugar factory outright. Mr.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the aforesaid representation is pending consideration with the respondent bank. 4. Since we are not inclined to interfere in this petition, as the relief, which is sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted, we dismiss the writ petition by directing the respondent bank to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, if received and if pending consideration, as expeditiously as possible. {3} Writ petition is dismissed summarily with the aforesaid directions with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4683-09