WP 11327/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11327/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/b Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Respondent nos.3 & 4 served. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 23.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith for final disposal at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 19.3.2010. By this communication, the WP 11327/10 2 petitioner’s proposal for transfer of Venkatesh Balak Ashram from Gangakhed to Latur has been rejected. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the officer, who has passed order dated 12.3.2010 and which was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 19.3.2010, was not competent to decide the petitioner’s proposal. Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the order dated 15.3.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7696/2009 whereby this Court had directed the “competent authority” to decide the petitioner’s proposal expeditiously and preferably by the end of March, 2010. Shri S.K. Kadam, learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the competent authority to decide such proposals is the State Government. In other words, he admits that respondent no.2 – Commissioner was not competent to decide the petitioner’s proposal. He, therefore, submits that respondent no.1 will consider the petitioner’s WP 11327/10 3 proposal afresh as per the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.7696/2009. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the following order will meet the ends of justice. Respondent no.1 shall consider the petitioner’s proposal for seeking transfer of Balak Ashram from Gangakhed to Latur as per the directions issued vide order dated 15.3.2009 in Writ Petition No.7696/2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31.5.2011. Respondent no.1 shall communicate its decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter. Before parting, we observe that while considering the petitioner’s proposal, respondent no.1 shall take into consideration the convenience and plight of the juveniles in conflict with law or the children in need of protection and care, from Gangakhed and the surrounding villages. We hope that the concerned authority shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing final WP 11327/10 4 order on their proposal. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 23.03.2011 ndk/c2331111