1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 54 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3710 OF 1994 A1 Hasnat Education & Welfare Society ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for Petitioner. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 22, 2010 P. C.: This review petition was filed on the basis that the petition could not have been disposed of based on the statement made on behalf of the Counsel for Respondent No. 5 that both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 had been granted grant-in-aid and therefore, nothing survives in this petition. We have perused the impugned order. Firstly we find that the prayer Clauses (c) and(d) are in the matter of closure of Respondent No. 5 school. Once Respondent No. 5 school was receiving grants, the question of granting Prayer Clauses (c) and (d) would not arise. Hence, in so far as these prayer clauses are concerned, the petition was rightly dismissed. 2 We then come to Prayer Clauses (a) and (b). We find that this court by order dated 11.10.1994 had noted that the recommendations have been received for release of grants for the year 1993-94. The said recommendation was in respect of 25% of the expenses for the year 1993-94. This court directed Respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision on the said recommendations within four weeks from the date of the order and release the amount of grant based on recommendations which Respondent No. 4 had forwarded to Respondent No. 2. Considering that in our opinion, Prayer Clauses (a) and (b) also would not survive. However, if the Petitioner has not received the said grants, the concerned Authorities are directed to release the same forthwith and not latter than eight weeks from the copy of this order being served by the Petitioner on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the concerned authorities. It is made clear that if the Petitioner has not received the grants, it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue the remedy against that and statement made by counsel for Respondent No. 5 would not stand in the way of the Petitioners. Review petition accordingly disposed of. (D.B. BHOSALE,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) 3