1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 454 OF 2009 1. Sahebrao s/o Dagadu Kunte, Age 55 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad 2. Shivaji s/o Manikrao Kunte, Age 40 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad 3. Surekha w/o Namdeorao Kunte, Age 45 years, Occ.Household, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad 4. Bhausaheb @ Baban Bhaurao Hire, Age 35 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad 5. Vandana w/o Prabhakar Kunte, Age 42 years, Occu.Household, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Water Supply & Cleanness Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 2 4. The Grampanchayat, Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad through its Sarpanch, Rajendra s/o Chokhaji Wagh, Age 32 years, Occu.Agri & Social Work, R/o Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad 5. The President/Secretary, Village Health Nutrition, Water Supply and Cleanness, Committee of Village Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri A.N.Kakade, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.N. Jadhav AGP for respondent No.1 Shri D.N.Patil (Bankar) Adocate for respondent No.3 Shri M.S.Patil, Amalnerkar, Advocate for respondent No.4 Respondents 2 and 5 served. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Rural Water Supply and Cleanness Committee established in 3 view of the Special Gramsabha dated 26.2.2006 and Supervisory Committee established in view of Specialo Gramsabha dated 11.9.2008 of village Bodhegaon, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and set aside. The petitioner by prayer clause (C) has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representations made by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 10.9.2008 and 20.11.2008. At the outset, Shri A.N.Kakade, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not press for the reliefs at prayer clause (B) and reserve to press the relief in the event occasion so arises. 3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid Committees which have been constituted as per the scheme framed by the Central Government is contrary to the provisions of the said scheme. The petitioners being aggrieved by the constitution of the said Committees had submitted representations dated 10.9.2008 and 20.11.2008, which according to the petitioners have not been decided so far. 4. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondent No.3 has filed its affidavit-in-reply and at paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the representations submitted by the petitioners are under consideration of the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 would expeditiously decide 4 the same and take appropriate steps accordingly. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 5. In the light of what is stated by the respondent No.3 in its affidavit-in-reply, particularly at paragraph 5, according to us the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for at prayer clause (C) to the petition. We, however, direct the respondent No.3 to decide the said representations as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 6. This petition, therefore, succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C) by directing respondent No.3 to decide the representations dated 10.9.2008 and 20.11.2008 submitted by the petitioners, within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in respect of prayer clause (B) in the event a cause of action arises. ( R.K.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/454.09wp) 5