-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2010 Shree Mauli Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sanstha, Talawade ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Mr. R.M. More, instructed by Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 08, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Child and Women Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, dated 10th July, 2009. By the impugned order, the approval for opening Balakashram is not granted to the petitioner institution on the ground of certain shortcomings and deficits. By an order dated 7th April, 2010, this Court had recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that whatever may be the shortcomings, the same will be met with within a period of two months from that day. The learned counsel for the -2- petitioner states that about 80 per cent of the shortcomings are complied with. Inspite of the same, the approval is not granted to the petitioner on the ground that there are still shortcomings. The shortcoming are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by one Deepak Y. Dhepe, District Women and Child Development Officer, Solapur. In the said affidavit it is averred that the petitioner institution has not constructed building, bath rooms, toilets and other amenities for inmates as per the norms prescribed by the Government in this behalf. Even inspection report is also annexed to the said affidavit­in­reply. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that whatever be the remaining shortcomings, the same will be met within a reasonable time. However, this Court cannot monitor this aspect by keeping the matter pending. It is not in dispute that today the institution has not complied with all the requirements and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. The petition, therefore, cannot be entertained in view of what is stated above. The petition is accordingly rejected. Notice discharged. 3. However, it will be open to the petitioner to apply again after complying with the norms prescribed by the Government in this behalf and if any such application is made again for approval, it is for the State Government to consider this aspect in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion on this aspect. It is for the Government to take appropriate decision in -3- this behalf and whatever may be the decision, the same may be communicated to the petitioner thereafter. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.