1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2009 Hemant Borole & Ors. ..Petitioners. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.V.Bukhari i/b. N.V.Bandiwadekar for petitioners. Mr.Kumar Biswa i/b. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.4. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP for State. Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent No.4. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- AUGUST 31, 2009. P.C. 1. Matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 2. In this Petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 ought not to grant permission to the Respondent No.8 to close the Respondent No.7 Institute. And further their services should not be 2 dispensed with or transferred to any other Institute by protecting their presently drawn pay scale and all other consequential benefits attached to their respective posts. 3. In our opinion, present Writ Petition is premature as well as not maintainable. It is not open for the Court to grant premature writ to the Petitioner directing the Authorities not to exercise their discretion which is vested in them by virtue of operation of law. The Respondent No.1 to 6 are the competent authorities who have the jurisdiction to permit an Institute to close down or not to close the same. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7 states that they have already moved the Application to Respondent No. 6 seeking their permission to close down the Institute for the reasons stated in that application including that the Defence Authority has directed the Institute to be closed down. It is further stated that they will not dispense with the services of the teachers except by following due process of law and presently they are only trying to provide alternative jobs and have given option to the teachers vide letter dated 27th July, 2009. 4. As the matter is still to receive consideration at the appropriate level, it is not a case where the Court should interfere and show any indulgence at 3 this stage. Therefore, we dispose of this Petition with observation that the Respondent No.1 to 6 may exercise its power to dispose of Application filed by the Respondent No.7 in accordance with the law expeditiously. In the meanwhile, the services of the Petitioners will not be terminated except by following due process of law and it will be open to the Petitioners to exercise options in furtherance to the letter dated 28th July, 2009 and serve at the alternative places. 5. Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J