1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 17 OF 2011 Anil Dhirajmal Katariya Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and othes. Respondents Mr. Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondents. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE M.T. JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 23rd March, 2011. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to decide his representation dated 4/12/2010. In the representation, the petitioner has made certain grievances against respondent No.4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a member of the monitoring committee, of which respondent No.3 is a Chairman. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner has made representation on 4/12/2010, neither the Collector, nor the Commissioner (i.e respondent Nos. 2 and 3), are taking any action on the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to how many meetings of the Monitoring Committee have been held from the date of his appointment. He was appointed in December, 2008, as one of the members of the said committee. He is also not in a position to 2 state whether the petitioner ever raised the issues/questions, as raised in the representation,in the meeting/s of the monitoring committee. 2] Keeping all the above facts in view, we are not inclined to issue direction, as prayed for, by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to raise all those issues, in meeting of the committee, of which he is a member. We hope and trust that the monitoring committee shall consider the issues and the questions that will be raised by the petitioner in the next meeting of the monitoring committee, in proper perspective. 3] With these observations, the petition is disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] grt/wp