1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3744 OF 2010 Adarsha Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak } Mandal, Wale Nagar, Latur } Tq. & Dist. : Latur. } Through its President } Bhimashankar S/o Gangaram Hengne } Age “ 48 Yrs., Occ. : Business, } R/o : At post : Hadolti, Tq. Ahmedpur, } Dist. : Latur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary } School Education Department, } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 2. The Director of Education } Maharashtra State, } Pune – 1. } 3. The Dy. Director of Education } Latur Division, Latur } District : Latur. } 4. The Education Officer ( Primary) } Zilla Parishad, Latur, } Tq. & Dist. : Latur. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S.Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. At the out set, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent no. 4 as no relief is claimed against respondent no. 4. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The proposal of the petitioner for opening Marathi medium primary school is said to be pending for consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited out attention to the statement made by the learned Govt. Pleader in similar matters that the Government would decide the proposals, in accordance with law, by the end of May, 2010. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of State states on instructions that the proposal would be decided, in accordance with law, afresh in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 355 of 2010 – Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha V/s The State of Maharashtra and others and other 3 companion petitions, by Judgment dated 8/4/2010. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. We accordingly allow this petition and make Rule absolute by directing the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner, in accordance with law, by the end of May, 2010 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3744.2010 ( J )