1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2009 Vilas s/o Suresh Jadhav, Age : 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o Malawali, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The District Collector, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar 2. The Tahasildar, Karjat, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr Y.S. Chaudhari, Advocate holding for Mr R.R. Karpe for the petitioner; Mr N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 2 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ for declaring the inaction on the part of the District Collector at Ahmednagar and the Tahsildar, Karjat, District Ahmednagar in not deciding the representations of the petitioner dated 14.5.2009 and 8.7.2009 as violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner, adverted to above. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the relief at prayer clause (D) to the petition, in the event this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner. 3. Since the representations submitted by the petitioner, dated 14.5.2009 and 8.7.2009 are pending consideration with the respondents, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the said representations in accordance with law. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Jadhav, learned Counsel on behalf of respondents. 3 5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and respondents are directed to decide the representations of the petitioner, adverted to above, within a period of three weeks, if pending, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C) to the petition and dismissing the petition in respect of prayer clause (D) to the petition, with liberty to file a petition afresh in the event an occasion so arises in respect of prayer clause (D) to the petition, with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 4