1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2010. Sadnath Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Nitor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, through its Secretary Shri Kalidas S/o Vasantrao Patil, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nitoor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr.T.J.Poul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the 2 State. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2266 OF 2010. Sadnath Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Nitor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, through its Secretary Shri Kalidas S/o Vasantrao Patil, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nitoor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr.T.J.Poul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2267 OF 2010. Vastad Lahuji Salve Navyuvak Vyam Shala and Krida Mandal Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, through its Secretary Shri Rajendra S/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr.T.J.Poul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2268 OF 2010. 4 Vastad Lahuji Salve Navyuvak Vyam Shala and Krida Mandal Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, through its Secretary Shri Rajendra S/o Shankarrao Sonake, Age 34 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Wadi Kasar Shirsi, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr.T.J.Poul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2269 OF 2010. Sadnath Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Nitor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, through its 5 Secretary Shri Kalidas S/o Vasantrao Patil, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nitoor, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Latur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr.T.J.Poul, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 19.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 6 With the consent of the learned counsel, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. These petitions which pose similar challenges are being decided finally at this stage. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Asstt.Govt. Pleaders accept notice on behalf of the Respondents Nos.1 to 3. The Respondent No.4 is a formal party. The Respondent No.4 had forwarded proposal to the other Respondents and, therefore, the notice is not necessary before deciding the petition. 3. Indisputably, on opening a new Education Institution, the petitioners submitted the proposal on 12.5.2008 for opening a new Primary/Secondary School as per Master Plan prepared by the Government. The aforesaid proposal submitted by the petitioners is said to be pending. 4. In that light of the matter, according to us, it would be appropriate to direct the 7 Respondents to decide the pending proposal. 5. These petitions, therefore, are accordingly allowed and the Respondents are directed to decide the pending proposal of the petitioners within eight (8) weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 6. Rule is thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp2271.10