{1} wp372907.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3729 OF 2007 Shankarrao Raoji Kale Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.A.R.Borulkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent no.1. Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 12 th January, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard Mr.Borulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kale, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Bondar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 2 Mr.Borulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, who is present in the Court, submits that notice to remaining respondents need not be issued and petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to Respondent No.2 to consider petitioner’s representation dated 31.08.2006 (Exhibit “E” to the petition) and take appropriate action, as prayed in the representation. {2} wp372907.odt 3 In view of this submission made by Mr.Borulkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, we are satisfied that following order would meet the ends of justice: (i) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 31.08.2006 (Exhibit “E” to the petition) on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) Respondent No.2 shall initiate action if he finds that the grievance made in the representation is genuine. (iii)It is needless to mention that Respondent No.2 shall grant an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. (iv)While passing this order, we shall not be understood to have examined merits of the case. (v) With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. R.M.BORDE D.B.BHOSALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp372907