-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 562 OF 2002 Ashok Jankilal Pandit and others ...Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. M.U. Pandey for the petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalavade, Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2009. P.C. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that while conferring Shiv Chhatrapati Sports Award upon sportspersons, appropriate care has not been taken nor a particular Association has not been consulted before conferring such award. It is the case of the petitioners that no Rules and Regulations have been framed in this behalf by the Government. In this petition, the petitioners have also challenged conferment of the award upon respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that they were not deserving the same. The petition has been filed in the year 2002. 2. Today, Mr. Nalavade, learned Government Pleader, appearing for -2- the State submitted that the State Government has already framed Rules and Regulations by which a Committee is constituted to examine the case of a particular sportsperson and on the basis of recommendation and as per the procedure now prescribed under the Regulations, such award is to be conferred on a sportsperson. It is submitted that the Rules which have been framed in 2003 have been amended in 2006. A copy of the amended Rules is shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of this, it is clear that the State Government has framed Rules and Regulations in order to see that the eligible sportsman/sportswoman can be conferred with such an award and the sportspersons who do not deserve such award will not be considered for conferment of such award. The criterion and machinery for conferring of such award is also prescribed by the Rules. 3. In view of the above, now nothing further is required to be done in this matter as now the Government has to act as per the Rules and Regulations framed in this behalf for the purpose of conferment of award on any sportsperson. It is pointed out that as per Rule 6A, particular Association is also to be consulted before conferring such award. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after going through the said Rules submits that now care has been taken by the Government in future to see that only genuine and deserving sportsperson gets such award. According to the learned counsel, whatever may be the response of the concerned Association, the concerned -3- Committee should take the same into account before taking any final decision in this regard regarding conferment of the award. In view of this, nothing further is required to be done in the matter and no further directions are required to be issued in this matter. It is needless to say that the Committee, while taking decision, naturally would go through the report, if any, received from the concerned Association. In view of the above, the grievance raised by the petitioners has been redressed and nothing further required to be done. 4. Petition is accordingly disposed of in view of what is stated above. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.