1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6384 OF 2010 Bahujanhitay Bahujansukhay Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ruhada, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 22nd July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing 2 the respondents to consider and decide the proposal of the petitioner submitted some time in year 2009. 3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier submitted a proposal seeking permission to open Marathi medium secondary school which came to be rejected on account of certain deficiencies/short-comings being noticed in the proposal of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, thereafter removed/cured all the deficiencies and the short-comings which were noticed earlier and his second proposal came to be submitted some time in year 2009. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the proposal which is submitted by the petitioner in year 2009 has not been decided by the respondents. This Court had an occasion to consider the Government Resolution dealing with the decision of the Government not to grant permission for opening schools in Marathi medium, in Writ Petition No.345/2010 Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, Salapuri,Tq.&Dist. Parbhani, (Through its President) Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 8.4.2010 had directed the Government to decide all the pending proposals within a stipulated period. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proposal submitted by the petitioner has not been decided. 3 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6384.10wp)