1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 of 2011 a/w. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.703 OF 2011 Maharshtra Rajya Pani Puravtha Va Swachata Vibhag Vividh Tadnya Samanvaya Sanghatana ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents Mr. Rajiv Patil a/w. Onkar Warange for Petitioners. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for the Respondent No.1 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 24th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Pleader has raised preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition. According to him, all the issues raised by the petitioners in the present petition can be conveniently 2 dealt with by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In other words, alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners to espouse their case before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Tribunal. We have no difficulty in acceding to the preliminary objection raised by the Government Pleader. We agree to the said objection also because, the petitioners have had filed Original Application No.1093 of 2010 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which, however, was disposed of on the basis of statement made on behalf of the State Government. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is essentially that the State Government is departing from the said assurance given to the Tribunal, by issuing corrigendum which would dilute the original scheme which was the subject matter of the proceeding before the Tribunal. 2. Thus understood, the petitioners may approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to pursue their relief now claimed in the present petition. As aforesaid, we are in agreement with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the state. However, at the same time, we appreciate the predicament of the petitioners, that 3 the time span now available to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal is virtually over, as the Jal Swaraj Project Scheme, by virtue of the corrigendum, which is the subject matter of this petition, would come to end on 30th June, 2010. At this fag end, the State Government has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, which was filed by the petitioners way back in March 2011 and was placed for hearing on several dates during this period. Thus, even if we were to accede to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State, in the interest of justice, we think it appropriate to direct the State to maintain status quo as of today, for the period of 10 days from today. 3. This direction of status quo would mean that the members of the petitioners association, who are already in employment of the State Government, by way of indulgence, in the peculiar facts of the present case, which is already referred to earlier, should be continued till 10 days from today. 4. We , however, make it clear that the Tribunal will be free to consider all aspects of the matter on its own merits and pass appropriate order 4 as may be warranted during the pendency of the proposed proceeding before it. All questions raised in this petition are kept open. We make it clear that the order of status quo would not come in the way of the State to proceed with the interview process which is already in progress, but the State cannot discontinue the members of the petitioners for a period of 10 days from today on the pretext that the Jal Swaraj Project has already expired on 30th June, 2011. 5. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move the Tribunal. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)