Ashwamegh Jeevan Vikas Prerna ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14183 Bom

                                                                 4.wp3731.2021.odt
                                              1/2



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3731 OF 2021
  1. Ashwamegh Jeevan Vikas Prerna
  Sanstha, through its Secretary, Rewasa,
  Taluka & District - Amravati.

  2. Chaturji Uke Anudanit Adiwasi
  Ashramshala, through its Head Master,
  Rewasa, Taluka & District - Amravati.

  3. Mahendra Ishwarsingh Parihar
  Aged about 36 years, Occupation : Service,
  R/o. Ward 02, Mardi, Amravati - 444 904                      .... PETITIONERS

                                 // VERSUS //

  1. The State of Maharashtra
  Through its Secretary, Tribal Development
  Department, Mantralaya,
  Mumbai - 400032

  2. The Additional Commissioner of Tribal
  Development, Amravati.

  3. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal
  Development Project, Dharni,
  District - Amravati.                          .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners..
  Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
  ________________________________________________________________
  s




                                CORAM         : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, AND
                                                ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: S.B. Shukre, J.]

Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned AGP who appears by

waiving notice for respondents.

4.wp3731.2021.odt

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is

heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that proposal sent by the petitioner No.2-School to the

respondent No.2 for granting approval to the appointment of

petitioner No.3 as Shikshan Sewak on 16.12.2015 has still not been

decided by the respondent No.2 and therefore, now it is necessary

that appropriate directions are issued to the respondent No.2.

5. We find that the proposal, as submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners is pending for almost five years and

therefore, now it is time for the respondent No.2 to decide it in

accordance with law.

6. In view of above, the petition is allowed.

7. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the proposal

dated 16.12.2015 in accordance with law within a period of 30 days

from the date of the receipt of the order.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity