1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 21. CP/319/2009 IN WP/4699/2009 (INDIRA GANDHI BAHUDDESHIY PRATISTHAN V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.D.B.Pawar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.D.Rakh, A.G.P., for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:18-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner, asserting to be an Non Governmental Organisation ( for short, "N.G.O.") involved in tribal development activities, feels that the orders of this Court dt. 21.7.2009, in Writ Petition No. 4699/2009, are not complied with by respondent No.2, to forward the proposal to respondent no.1, the Collector. 3. On perusal of the respective affidavits in reply from 2 respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is apparent, several deficiencies were pointed out, as enumerated at internal page no.6 of the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.2 D.S.Rajurkar, which the petitioner herein is bound to comply. Grievance of the petitioner is, he was not indicated that, still, there are such deficiencies in the proposal. 4. After the petitioner satisfies the terms and conditions, as mandated by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, which also include maintenance of proper infrastructure, other required facilities, including civic amenities, lodging and boarding, which the petitioner is bound to adhere to the guidelines, the proposal could be forwarded. In the light of the deficiencies referred above, the petitioner is at liberty to comply the same, thereafter the authorities to scrupulously process without keeping the ball 3 rolling, avoiding the obligations cast on the respondents. At this stage, no contempt could be surfaced. Petition dismissed. Respondents discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/319-09cp