1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2741 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2008 (M/s. Ashutosh Industries .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Shri A.S. Parihar, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri M.P. Badar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 09TH JUNE, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this Civil Application, the petitioner/applicant has made the following prayer :- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dispose of the petition and direct the respondent no.5 to decide the representation No. IA-791/2005 within 15 days in the interest of justice.” The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6137 of 2005 and in the said writ petition, Civil Application No. 42 of 2006 was filed for interim relief. The said writ petition was admitted on 31.01.2006 and while admitting the writ, following order was passed. “Heard. Rule. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, it has been specifically mentioned in the concluding para no.25 that the action has been taken as per the orders dated 4.3.97 and 30.10.2002 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P. No.202 of 1995. 2 It has been informed by Mr. Badar learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents that the decision in the matter has to be taken by the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court to examine grant of permission to Ply Wood or Veneer Units to operate and the parties have already approached the Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee, constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In view of this fact situation, we are not inclined to pass any interim orders unless the CEC takes a decision in the matter of application filed by the petitioner before it for seeking permission. Mr. Parsodkar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that CEC may be directed to take a decision in the matter of their representation against closure order dated 17/10/2005 passed by the Forest Department, Nagpur, which is impugned in this petition. The Central Empowered Committee is not a party respondent before us and, therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can approach the CEC in the matter and communicate the order passed by this Court. He can request the CEC to expeditiously dispose of their representation. Parties at liberty to move this Court if any contingency arises.” In pursuance of this order, the petitioners approached the CEC requesting them to decide their representation dated 17.10.2005 bearing IA – 791/2005. According to the petitioners, till this date, the CEC has not decided the representation dated 17.10.2005. Shri M.P. Badar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that CEC has expressed its inability to decide the representation of the petitioners on the ground that the timber is not available and the representation will be considered only when the timber would be available. This statement of Shri Badar has been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not wish to enter into the controversy. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly order passed by this Court dated 31.01.2006, we are 3 inclined to dispose of the Civil Application and the Writ Petition by the following order :- The CEC shall decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2005 bearing IA – 791 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The CEC shall decide the said application on merit in accordance with law and by following the due procedure. It is made clear that we are not issuing any direction to CEC to either grant or reject the petitioner's representation and we hope and trust that the CEC shall decide the representation on merits in accordance with law. It is also open to the CEC to consider all the aspects of the matter including availability of the timber and the validity of the licence. It may also take into consideration their own order passed in M/s. Greenply Industries Limited on Application No. 278 dated 25.02.2004. With these observations, Civil Application is made absolute and as a consequence thereof, writ petition is also disposed of. Rule is discharged. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.