1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6701 OF 2009 Purushottam Education Society, Through its Secretary, Vivek Nagar, Nanded .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. Director, Higher and Technical Education, Central Building, Pune 1 3. Assistant Director, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government Polytechnic College Campus, Nanded 4. Swami Ramanand Tirth University, Through its Registrar, Vishnupuri, Nanded .. RESPONDENTS Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 Respondent No.4 deleted CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 7th October 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. At the outset, Mrs.Gunjal, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner may be permitted to delete respondent No.4. We, accordingly, grant leave to delete respondent No.4 at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to grant proposal of the petitioner dated 31.10.2008 and by virtue of prayer clause (C) prays for issuance of writ directing respondent No.1 to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner. 4. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid proposal of the petitioner dated 31.10.2008 is pending consideration with respondent No.1. In that light of the matter, according to us, the petitioner would not be entitled for the relief at prayer clause (B) to the petition but would be entitled to the relief at prayer clause (C) to the petition. 3 5. We, accordingly, allow this petition and direct respondents 1, 2 and 3 who are represented before us by Shri Dighe, learned Assistant Government Pleader, to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of four months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/6701.09wp