1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7732 OF 2009 Kai Kondiji Perkar Shikshan Mandal, Plot No.M-16, N-5, Bajrang Chowk, CIDCO, Aurangabad through its President Rambhau s/o Kondji Perkar, Age 53 years, Occu.Social Service, R/o Plot No.M-16, N-5, Bajrang Chowk, CIDCO, Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Secretary, Department of Technical Education Mumbai. 3. The Task Force Committee, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Extension Mumbai 32 Through its President, The Director of Higher Education Maharashtra State, Pune. 4. The Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad Through its Registrar .. RESPONDENTS Shri Abhay Rathod, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 Mrs.R.R.Mane, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 18th March 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant permission and affiliation to the proposed new college of the petitioner at Jalna under the faculty of Management Science for conducting course of Diploma in Computer Application or D.C.A. as per the proposal which is said to be pending. 3. We need not dilate on the factual aspects of the case relating to the submission of the proposal with the recommendation of the University and which is ultimate passage through various Government departments. Suffice it to say that the proposal of the petitioner is presently under consideration of respondent No.1. Since the proposal of the petitioner has not been decided, according to us it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 3 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/7732.09wp)