1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3791 OF 2009 Manmath Pandba Lokhande & anr. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24th June, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.4 not to grant permission in favour of respondents no.2 & 3 to appoint a regular Principal in the M.S. Bidve Engineering College, Latur . It is also prayed that respondents no.2 & 3 may be permanently restrained by an order of injunction restraining them from making appointment on the post of Principal in M.S. Bidve Engineering College, Latur. 2. On account of pendency of several change reports, the respondents de facto trustees came to be appointed. The contention of the petitioners is that 2 the de facto trustees have no right to take a policy decision and appoint a Principal in the said institute. According to the petitioner, even the Joint Charity Commissioner had addressed a communication to respondent University expressing his opinion that the de facto trustees would not get a right to make an appointment. Similarly also it appears that the said view was expressed by the Deputy Registrar of Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University in communication dated 6.1.2009. Subsequently, it appears that a communication came to be issued by the Director of the College & University Development Board of the respondent University dated 9/12/1/2001 informing the respondents that permission could not be granted to the respondents for making the appointment to the post of Principal. However, it appears that the Deputy Registrar of the said University by his communication dated 14.5.2009 gave a green signal to the respondents for appointing or filling the post of a Principal. Accordingly interviews were scheduled to be held but according to the petitioner that the interviews were not held and the post of the Principal has not been filled. According to us, in these disputed questions of fact, the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedies. Even after the appointment has been made by the respondents, the petitioners have alternate remedies available to him in law. In the light of that the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] amj/wp3791.09