1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2006 Hemchandra s/o Jagannath Kale, R/o-31, Samarth Colony, Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr..A.G. Talhar Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. Mr.P.R. Patil Advocate for Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The limited relief prayed in this Petition is to issue directions to the Respondents (State of Maharashtra) to take appropriate decision on the representation made by the Petitioner dated 10th September, 2005. In one sense, it is a benign order invited by the Petitioner from this Court. Indubitably, the authority cannot keep the representation pending if the same is already filed by the Petitioner and more so having regard to the observations made by this Court in the previous proceedings. The authority may dispose of such representation one way or the other in accordance with law. 3 3. Counsel for the Corporation, who is not impleaded as Respondent in this Petition, however, invites our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 4th August, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 4762 of 2005. Although the Petitioner has made reference to the said proceedings, has not annexed the copy of the said order to the present Petition. The order provides that the Government shall hear the concerned persons. The expression 'concerned persons' has been clarified meaning thereby, the concerned persons shall be those against whom findings are arrived at by the Committee. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, in view of this clear and unambiguous observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is not open to the Petitioner to insist that he should be heard by the appropriate authorities. Besides this order, our attention is also invited to the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court dated 14th September, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 5423 of 2006. The application made by the 4 Petitioner herein for intervening in the said proceedings has been rejected. 4. It is not necessary for us to consider whether in the light of the above-said orders the Petitioner ought to be heard by the appropriate authority. That aspect will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authority on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. This Petition is accordingly disposed of with direction to the appropriate authority to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 10th September, 2005 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks from today and submit compliance report in the Registry of this Court. 6. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp1577.06