1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5713/2007 (Saurabha Mahila Vikas Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra and 3 others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & Smt. V.A.NAIK , JJ. DATED: 22nd January, 2008. *** Heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Bharati Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for respondents. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the advertisement dated 31.10.2007 issued by respondent no.3, whereby applications were invited from the Women Organizations and Self-help Savings Group, under Integrated Child Development Scheme, for supply of 'ready to eat' nutritious food to Nursery Centres. Learned counsel for petitioner states that Condition No. 7 in the said advertisement stipulates that each Women Organization / Self-help Savings Group shall apply for one Project only. The condition further requires that such Women Organization/ Self-help Savings Group must be registered in the said area and also 2 must have a kitchen located in the said area and the members of such Women Organizatiion/ Self-help Savings Group should be resident of the said area. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that this restriction put by the respondent no.3, for the first time, is inconsistent with the earlier policy which is followed by Respondent no.3. It is, therefore, contended that that the impugned advertisement is bad n law. 3. Mrs. Dangre, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the advertisement is issued by the respondent no. 3, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court as well as policy formulated by the State Government on the basis thereof and, therefore, the same is neither inconsistent with the procedure applicable nor unjust. On the other hand, it helps the Women Organizations and Self-help Savings Groups. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the present case, there is no material before us in order to hold that Clause 7 of the advertisement is either contrary to the provisions of law, any specific policy or the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of.....................................and, in the absence thereof, it is difficult for us to hold that the said clause is either bad in law or not sustainable in law. 3 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present advertisement is inconsistent with the earlier policy of the Government, particularly in respect of allotment of order of supply of nutritious food 50 % to Self-help Savings Group and 50 % to Women Organization is concerned, that is not the part of the present advertisement and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on that issue at this stage. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, interim order stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE sahare