1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5558 OF 2009 Punamchand s/o Ramdas Nikam, Age : 28 years, Occu.Agri., R/o Kalamsare, Amalner, Tal. Amalner, District Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State Election Commission, Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Collector Office , Jalgaon 3. The District Election Officer, Collector Office Premises, Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.B. Salve, Advocate holding for Mr A.R. Salve for the petitioner; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 3 Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 25th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 2 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition the petitioner though has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the reservation policy made by them vide order dated 9.7.2009, the relief which is now prayed for before us is that the respondent no.2 Collector, Jalgaon be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.7.2009. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 3. Shri Salve, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 27.7.2009 to the respondent no.2 Collector, Jalgaon requesting therein for reconsideration of the reservation policy. The aforesaid representation, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is pending consideration and has not been decided. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ be issued to the respondent no.2 Collector, Jalgaon for deciding the said representation. In the light of the relief which is urged 3 before us, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. We have accordingly heard Shri R.B. Salve, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 & 3 and Shri V.B. Ghatge, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent no.2. In the light of the pendency of the representation, therefore, we direct the respondent no.2 Collector to decide the said representation, if pending, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the fact that we have directed the Collector to decide the same, within a period of two weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5558.09 4 WRIT PETITION NO.5558 OF 2009 Date of decision : 25th August, 2009 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. ( Anant Joshi ) Private Secretary to Honourable Judge