1 wp683.11.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2011 Mr. Dastagir Gaibi Patel. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A.M.Joshi, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P.Kakade, AGP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : MARCH 16, 2011. P.C. 1. In deference to the observations made by the Court, the Counsel for the Petitioner submits that ins tead of pursuing prayer clauses (b) and (c) of this Petition in this court, the Petitioner, in the first place, would make fresh representation to the appropriate authority. In that case, the appropriate authority may be directed to decide the said representation one way or the other expeditiously. 2 wp683.11.sxw 2. We have no difficulty in accepting this suggestion. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to make representation to the appropriate authority and if the decision of the appropriate authority is adverse to the Petitioner, he would be free to question the correctness thereof by way of appropriate proceedings. The Petitioner to make representation to the concerned authority within two weeks from today. The same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law by the concerned authority within four weeks from the receipt thereof and decision so taken on the said representation be communicated to the Petitioner within the same time. Ordered accordingly. All questions are left open. (MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)