1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2011 OF 2009 Balasaheb s/o Sonaji Manvatkar, Age 45 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Rani Wahegaon, Post Mapegaon, Taluka Partur, District Jalna .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalna District Jalna 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalna, District Jalna 3. Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board Pune Through its Managing Director, Taluka and District Pune 4. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Partur, Taluka Partur, District Jalna Through its Secretary 5. Babasaheb s/o Apparao Akat, Aged 48 years, Occu. Agriculture Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Partur, District Jalna .. Respondents Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Shri N.R.Pawade, Advocate for respondent No.4 Shri D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5 Respondent No.3 served, absent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 1st September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri V.D.Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.B.Khandare, learned Govt.Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, Shri N.R.Pawade, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 and Shri D.J.Choudhari, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.5. None on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned Counsel for the parties state that in the light of the fact that the respondents have withdrawn the show cause notice dated 9.7.2008, prayer clause (B) to the petition which is for quashing and setting aside the said show cause notice does not now survive for consideration. 3. It is further stated before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the report dated 27.7.2007, the petitioner submitted representation dated 11.8.2008 at Exh.”F” addressed to the respondent No.2 for taking appropriate action pursuant to the said report. According to the petitioner the aforesaid representation is pending consideration with respondent No.2. In the light of the fact that the said representation is pending consideration with the respondent No.2, 3 we are inclined to allow this petition to the limited extent of directing respondents to decide the said representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.8.2008, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The respondents to decide the said representations on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that we have directed the respondents to decide the same. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/2011.09wp 4