IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2009 All India Lalbegi (Bhangi) Samaj Mahila Safai Kamgar Development Society and another ... Petitioners V E R S U S Union of India and others ... Respondents ... Mr. M.V. Ghadge, holding for Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.K. Tambe, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondents No. 2 Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 15th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. We have noticed that the office of the Standing Counsel for the Union of India situated in the premises of the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court lacks the basic infrastructural facilities like telephone, Fax machine, computer etc. These facilities are essential for effective communication and assistance to the Court in discharge of day to day functions. The ultimate consumer of justice would be benefited if timely communication is made by the counsel for taking instructions and making statements before Court. We expect the Ministry of Law to look into this issue, though small in nature, and do the needful. ( 2 ) 3. We observe that in spite of lack of basic infrastructural facilities, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India have been assisting this Court satisfactorily. 4. The petitioners seek direction to respondents authorities for allotment of quota for training manual scavengers under the self employment scheme for rehabilitation of manual scavengers (SRMS). The petitioners claim that they were earlier allotted candidates for three to four years, who were trained by them. But, lateron, the respondent No. 4 started allotting the respective candidates to other centres, whose performance was not at all satisfactory. At some places, these Institutes have not trained any candidate, whereas, comparatively the petitioners performance was much better. The learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that these Government Agencies do not have any infrastructural facilities. 5. The respondents No. 4 and 5 filed affidavit in reply and questioned the locus standi of the petitioners. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that the petition is mainly filed to get stipend under the scheme. The learned counsel submits that the Institutes, which are selected for training are discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the Corporation. According to the counsel, the respondent No. 4 is channelizing agency, authorized by the Central Government, as the scheme is undertaken and implemented by the Union of India. ( 3 ) 6. Considering the facts of the case, nature of issue raised and the reply filed, we do not find that judicial review is required in this matter. We expect that the respondent No. 4 shall implement the scheme in best possible manner so that the object of the scheme is fully achieved. In the facts of the case, the prayer made by the petitioners for allotment of the candidates cannot be considered. The petition is therefore dismissed. 7. The Registry of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/1363/09