1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5663 OF 2010 1. Uttam s/o Shrinivasrao Joshi, Age 56 years, Occu.Service, R/o Ganesh Mandir Road, Nanded, Tq. and Dist.Nanded 2. Gulam Mohammad Sadiq, s/o Gulam Sandani, Age 35 years, Occu.Service, R/o H.No.A-4, Triveni Nagar, Taroda (Bk), Nanded, Taluka and Dist.Nanded .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Commissioner, Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded (3) Laxman Kashiram Choure, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | | Respondents No.3 to (4) Shri Gousoddin Jahiroddin, | 13 deleted as per Age Major, Occu.Service, | leave granted by | the Court on (5) Rajendra s/o Mohan Deshpande, | 29.6.2010 Age Major, Occu.Service, | | (6) Shivaji V.Gadewar, | Age Major, Occu.Service | | (7) Ashok Santappa Ghale, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | | (8) Balaji s/o Bapurao Ikale, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | | (9) Gadappa s/o Mallesh | Age Major, Occu.Service, | 2 (10) Bapurao G.Dange, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | | (11) Anant S.Shinde, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | | (12) Shankar Chanduji Khillare, | Age Major, Occu.Service | | (13) Mohd.Amin Mohd.Burhan | Age Major, Occu.Service, | Resp.No.3 to 13 are | R/o Nanded-Waghala Municipal | Corporation, Near Gokul Nagar, | Stadium, Station Road, | Nanded, Tq. and District | Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr. Mrigesh D.Narwadkar, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.M.V.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondents 3 to 13 deleted as per leave granted by the Court on 29.6.2010 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 6th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioners apologises for not effecting the deletion of the name of respondents 3 to 13 and assures the Court that the necessary correction in the cause title would be carried out during the course of the day. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further seek oral leave to amend the 3 petition by incorporating a prayer for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 1.7.2010. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not pressing for the reliefs prayed for at prayer clause (B) and (C) to the petition but pray for liberty to file a petition afresh in the event the representation dated 1.7.2010 is decided against the petitioners. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition insofar as it relates to prayer clause (B) and (C) to the petition with the liberty prayed for. 4. It appears that the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents, on 1.7.2010, during the pendency of this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that as per the amended prayer clause, a writ be issued to the respondents for deciding the said representation. Mr.M.V.Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 states that the respondent No.2 would decide the representation, if 4 pending, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, dated 1.7.2010, if pending, in accordance with law, within six weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/5663.10wp)