204wp4158.08.sxw 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4158 of 2008 (Geological Survey of India Employees Asso. vs. Union of India and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha & A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 20/04/2009. Heard Mr. M. B. Agasti, Adv. for Petitioner and Mr. S.K.Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the instant petition, the grievance of petitioner is in respect of Office order dt. 28.4.2008 passed by respondent no.1 whereby a Committee is constituted to examine the internal dispute regarding claim and counter claim made within GSIEA (822) by the group headed by Mr.H.A.Alvi, Secretary General and Mr. Domaprasad, President on one side and group headed by Mr. Aman Sontakke, President and Mr.T.V.Ramaiyya, General Secretary on other side. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in law to constitute such Committee for taking decision in the matter and it is for the competent Authority to take such decision and therefore, the Office order is bad. It is further contended that the communication dt. 4.8.2008 issued by the Administrative Officer to the Deputy Director 204wp4158.08.sxw 2 . General also cannot be sustained for the similar reasons. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Perused the impugned office order as well as the communication. By office order dt. 28.4.2008, respondent no.1 has merely constituted a fact finding Committee to examine the issue in question and has asked to submit report thereof. The Committee does not have independent power to decide the dispute and is only required to submit its report to the competent Authority, who is required to take a decision on merits and therefore, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. For the similar reason, even the communication dt. 4.8.2008 cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of law since the final decision is required to be taken only by the competent Authority. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE jais