1 os-wp-945-1008-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 945 OF 2011 Baishak Dutta ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2011 Neeta Bharti Shrivastav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. C.R. Sadasivan with Mr. N.M. Gangulifor petitioner in both the petitions. Mr. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1 in both the petitions. Mr. M.V. Joglekar with Mr. Rahul Oak for respondent nos.2 and 3 in both the petitions. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 16, 2011. P.C. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and both the petitions raise a common grievance. Admittedly, the petitioners have directly come before us 2 os-wp-945-1008-11.doc rather than submitting a representation to the Grievance Committee as constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. In our opinion the Grievance Committee is a statutory body of experts capable of dealing with the issues raised by the petitioners at the first instance. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to submit a representation to the Grievance Committee constituted by respondent no.4 – University. Hence, leave granted and the petitions are disposed as withdrawn with liberty to file representation before the Grievance Committee of University of Mumbai. If such a representation is submitted within two weeks from today, we direct that it be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from its receipt. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)