1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5135 OF 2009. Sambha S/o Kamaji Yengade, Age 55 years, Occ.Service, Presently working as T.M.Grade-II, R/o Wrandavan Colony, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Shelke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.03.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. At the outset, Mr.A.S.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that leave be granted to the petitioner for amending the petition by incorporating a prayer for issuance of a writ directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.2.2009 in accordance with law within a stipulated period. We see no impediment whatsoever in granting the petitioner this relief. Amendment, therefore, to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. At the outset Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the reliefs at prayer clauses (A) and (B) at this stage but press for liberty to file a Writ Petition afresh seeking the same relief. We accordingly, dismiss 3 the petition in respect of prayer clauses (A) & (B) as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. 4. Since the petitioner has now prayed, by virtue of the amended prayer clause that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.2.2009 be decided in accordance with law, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsel very fairly states that if the representation is still pending, the Respondent No.2 would decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from today. We accept the said statement as an undertaking. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the said representation dated 24.2.2009 if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above 4 terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp513509