1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4197 OF 2010 MADARSA E MILLIAH EDUCATION SOCIETY, NANDED THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MOHD.MUSLEHUDDIN S/O MOHD. HISAMUDDIN AGE . 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE, AND PRESIDENT OF MADARSA E MILLIAH EDUCATION SOCIETY, NANDED R/O : IMRAN COLONY, HYDERBAG, NANDED DIST. : NANDED .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE. 3. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION LATUR REGION, LATUR. 4. EDUCATION OFFICER(PRIMARY) ZILLA PARISHAD, NANDED. .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4215 OF 2010 GULZAR EDUCATIONN SOCIETY MADINA NAGR, NANDED THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MOHD.MUSLEHUDDIN S/O 2 MOHD. HISAMUDDIN AGE . 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE, AND PRESIDENT OF MADARSA E MILLIAH EDUCATION SOCIETY, NANDED R/O : IMRAN COLONY, HYDERBAG, NANDED DIST. : NANDED .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI. 2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE. 3. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION LATUR REGION, LATUR. 4. EDUCATION OFFICER(PRIMARY) ZILLA PARISHAD, NANDED. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.R.Choukidar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil & Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Assistant Govt. Pleaders for State. Mr. V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for respondent no. 4. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/05/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at 3 the stage of admission. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioners is that the proposal for opening additional divisions from 1st to 7th standards is pending consideration with the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Govt. Pleaders on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 4. 3. Since the proposals is pending, we consider it appropriate to direct respondent no. 4 to forward the proposal to the competent authorities and direct respondent no. 1 to decide the proposal, in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 to forward the proposal to respondent no. 1 within three weeks from today and direct respondent no. 1 to decide the said proposal, in accordance with law within three months of receipt of the said proposal from respondent no. 4. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4197,4215.10 ( J ) 4