1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4687 OF 2009 Magaj Samaj Seva Mandal at Dahiphal Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Jalna Through its Secretary Shri.Kishor S/o.Mohan Rathod, Age-24 years, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o.Dahiphal Tanda, Taluka and District Jalna 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, Jalna District : Jalna RESPONDENTS Mr.N.P.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondents. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 24/09/2009 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. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the communication/order dated 04/07/2009 issued by the respondents refusing to grant final permission to the petitioner for starting a Balak Ashram. 3. The proposal of the petitioner came to be favourably considered by the State Government and accordingly a preliminary permission dated 10/11/2008 came to be granted to the petitioner on certain conditions which are enumerated in the aforesaid order. The premises which were offered by the petitioner for starting a Balak Ashram came to be inspected and the inspection report is annexed to the petition at Exh.C. It appears that the premises which the petitioner was intending to take on lease did not materialize as the Landlord had refused/declined to give the premises on rent to the petitioner. Consequent there to, the petitioner commenced the construction at his own premises. The report states that the constructions is in progress. The petitioner has also annexed photographs at Exh.D to demonstrate the fact that the construction is in progress. Since the petitioner had not submitted any compliance report or there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had complied with the conditions, a show cause notice dated 3 13/05/2009 came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the final permission should not be refused to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply and contended that the construction was in progress and would be completed within 2 months. The respondents however did not favourably considered the proposal of the petitioner and the impugned order came to be issued. 4. We have heard Shri.N.P.Patil learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Jadhav learned AGP for the respondents. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in a position to complete the construction within 2 months from today and would thereafter submit an application to the respondents regarding completion of the construction. We find that the permission had been refused to the petitioner as the petitioner had failed to remove the deficiencies or had failed to fulfill the obligations which were cast on the petitioner by the preliminary sanction granted by the respondents. The premises of the petitioner was obviously not in order for starting a Balak Ashram, and therefore no fault can be found with the order of the respondents in declining to grant the permission. However, since the petitioner undertakes to complete the construction within 2 months from today, according to us it would be appropriate that the petitioner submits an application informing the respondents about completion of the construction. If such application is received by the respondents within a period of 3 months from today, the respondents are directed to inspect the 4 premises and if it is found that the premises are in order and the amenities and facilities are in order, re-commend the case of the petitioner for grant of final approval to the competent authority. The respondents are directed to deal with the application of the petitioner on its own merits. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and make the rule absolute in terms of the directions issued hereinabove with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp4687-09