1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3353/2010 Unnati Mahila Bachat Gat and ors. ..vs.. Union of India and ors. WITH Writ Petition No. 3886/2010 Gautami Mahila Bachat Gat & ors. ..vs.. Union of India and ors. WITH With Writ Petition No. 3959/2010 Indira Swayam Sahayata Bachat Gat ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate for respondent-State of Maharashtra. Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. A. S. Manohar, Advocate for respondent no.6 CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 26, 2010 1. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent-State of Maharashtra, has tendered an affidavit dated 25.08.2010 of one Mr. B. M. Kadve, Dy. Commissioner 2 (Health and Nutrition) in the Office of Integrated Child Development Scheme, who has stated that the petitioners, who are supplying hot meals under the old pattern of supply of foods to the children falling within the age group from 3 to 6 years, will not be affected adversely in any way and more particularly the supply of Hot Meals shall continue to be an essential component of the Integrated Child Development Scheme as is implemented in the State of Maharashtra for the children within the age group of 3 to 6 years. This, in our view, would ensure that the petitioners, who have been supplying the Hot Meals to the aforesaid categories of children would continue to do so subject to, of course, the renewal of their contract, in accordance with law. In the affidavit, it has further been stated that since the extension of one year given to the Self Help Groups, Mahila Bachat Gats, Mahila Sansthas of the petitioners is coming to an end in the month of September-2010, the District Committees have been already directed to invite fresh applications for selection of the Self Help Groups, Mahila Bachat Gats, Mahila Sanstha. In addition, it is stated that the petitioners 3 should be free to participate in the selection process initiated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2009. 3. In this view of the matter, Mr. A. M. Gordey, the learned Senior Advocate for petitioners, states that the petitioners do not wish to press these petitions since their livelihood is protected. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the directions contained in the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2009 regarding the engagement of Self Help Groups, Mahila Bachat Gats, Mahila Sansthas shall be implemented faithfully and truly according to the intent and spirit of the G.R. so that eventually they would be able to participate fully in the supply of all items under the Scheme including the Take Home Ration (THR). Mr.Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-State of Maharashtra, states on instructions from Mr.Kadve, Dy. Commissioner (Health and Nutrition), who is deponent of the affidavit, that the Government will do so and they have already initiated steps for implementation of the directions 4 contained in the said Government Resolution especially para 3.1 of the Resolution. We accept the statement made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and accordingly we allow the petitioners to withdraw these petitions. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Interim orders shall stand vacated. JUDGE JUDGE kahale