1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4608 OF 2009 Rajaram Shikshan Prasarak Mandal at Kandhar, District Nanded, Through its Secretary, Shri.Nilkanth S/o.Ramchandra Rathod, Age-35 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o.Kandhar, Taluka Kandhar, District : Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Commissioner, Women and Child Development Maharashtra State, Pune-1 3. The District Women and Child Development Officer, Nanded, District Nanded RESPONDENTS Mr.N.P.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 3 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 08/10/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per, P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to issue order of final approval pursuant to the order passed by the State Government dated 06/11/2007 and also prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order/letter dated 01/07/2009, thereby the proposal of the petitioner society came to be returned back. 3. Shri.Jadhav, learned AGP who appears on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, states that respondent no.2 would consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with Law. In the light of that statement therefore, it is not necessary for us to advert to the facts of the present case. Suffice it to state that we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01/07/2009 and accept the statement of the learned AGP that respondent no.2 would consider the application afresh in accordance with Law. This exercise by respondent no.2 of considering the application afresh to be carried out within 4 months from today. We further direct respondent no.2 to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 3 4. Rule thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp4608-09