:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1114 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1114 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1114 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicants versus The Education Officer, Primary Zila Parishad, Solapur & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, AGP for the Applicants. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Even though the Respondents are served, they are absent. 2. The present Civil Application is taken out by the State Government seeking modification and/or suitable directions by way of clarification in respect of an Order dated 4.10.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 433 of 2006. :2: 3. In the original Writ Petition No. 433 of 2006 as disputed questions of facts were involved, this Court by its Order dated 4.10.2006 left it open to the 2nd Respondent from the Writ Petition to hear all concerned parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Further direction was issued that such order be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the Order of this Court dated 4.10.2006. The original Petition was accordingly disposed of. 4. The 2nd Respondent in the original Writ Petition No. 433 of 2006 has been described as under: "The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department (Primary) Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032" It is contended in the Civil Application filed on behalf of the State that in accordance with the aforesaid Order of this Court dated 4.10.2006, the matter was being heard by the Hon’ble State Minister for School Education, in accordance with Rules of Business of the State and usual practice followed by :3: the State Government. It is further contended that the 3rd and 4th Respondents from the original Writ Petition objected to the hearing being conducted by the Hon’ble State Minister. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicants - State that it was contention of the contesting Respondents that such hearing be conducted and the appropriate order in accordance with the aforesaid directions of this Court be passed by the Secretary of the concerned Department and not by the Hon’ble State Minister only because the 2nd Respondent who was to hear and decide was described in the original Petition as set out hereinabove. 5. In view of the aforesaid controversy raised by the contesting Respondents in regard to the implementation of the directions issued by this Court by the aforesaid Order dated 4.10.2006, the Applicants have filed the present Civil Application seeking appropriate modification and / or clarification of the aforesaid Order dated 4.10.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 433 of 2006. 6. We hereby clarify that the directions given by this Court by its aforesaid Order dated 4.10.2006 :4: passed in Writ Petition No.433 of 2006 be carried out by the State Government in accordance with its "Rules of Business". 7. As time has been spent in getting the aforesaid controversy resolved, it appears that the State Government was not able to comply with the directions within the period of six weeks prescribed by the aforesaid date 4.10.2006. Consequently, the time prescribed by the aforesaid Order dated 4.10.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.433 of 2006 is hereby extended by a further period of six weeks from today. 7. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)