1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3249 OF 2010 Late Dattatraya Mundhe Bahu- Uddheshiya Sevabhavi Va Shikshan Sanstha, Shekapur, Taluka Kandhar, district Nanded, through its President Smt. Manjusha w/o Shivaji Mundhe, Age : 38 years, occu. household and President of above Institution, R/o Shekapur, taluka Kandhar, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra, Department of School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Director of Education, [Primary Education), Central Building, Maharashtra State, Pune 1 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur, District Latur 4. The Education Officcer, [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Nanded, dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3 Respondent no.4 deleted. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 8th June, 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner dated 12.5.2008, for opening of a new Primary School at village Shekapur, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. 3. We have heard Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. who accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that leave may be granted to the petitioner for deleting respondent no.4 as no relief is claimed against respondent no.4. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner. 3 4. Since the proposal of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondents, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to decide the proposal, if pending, in accordance with law. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3249.10