1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3083 OF 2010 1. Ashok s/o Chandaji Kharat, Age : 54 years, occu.Security Officer, R/o Rahul Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 2. Pravin s/o Kishanrao Patil, Age : 47 years, Occu.Security Supervisor, R/o Narkheda, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani 3. Shaikh Khaum s/o Shaikh Mohamad, Age : 53 years, Occu.Security Guard, R/o Darga Road, Near Ekminar Masjid, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 4. Prabhakar s/o Nagorao Gande, Age : 58 years, Occu. Security Guard, R/o Bhagyanagar,C/o Bahate, teachers Colony, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 5. Uttam s/o Vithoba Kharat, Age : 62 years, Occu. Security Guard, R/o Sarfaraj Nagar, Near Jadhav Gas Agency, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 6. Shaikh Nabbi s/o Shaikh Hussain, Age : 47 years, Occu. Security Guard, R/o Ashok Nagar, Near Raghudas Society, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 7. Subhash s/o Dajiba Chavan, Age : 43 years, Occu. Security Guard, C/o Manchak Bhalerao, New Mondha Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing and Cotton Federation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Maharashtra State Oil Seeds Commercial And Industrial Co-operation Ltd. [ MOCICOL ]/Maharashtra State Marketing, Cotton Federation Ltd., Mumbai, Through its Managing Director ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 11th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners; learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.2. 3 3. The petitioners by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners requesting for extending the benefits to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 2.3.2010. The petitioners also pray that respondents be directed to extend an opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to the petitioners of submitting the documents. In the light of the limited nature of the relief which is prayed for by the petitioners in this petition, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. We have already adverted to the relief which is sought for by the petitioners in this petition and in that light of the matter, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to advert to the facts of the present case. Suffice it to state that the petitioners had submitted representations which are still pending consideration with the respondent no.2. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us it is necessary that the respondent no.2 decides the said representations by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as an opportunity to tender the documents in support of their claim. We expect the respondent no.2 to decide the said representations within three months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 4 5. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3083.10