Mr.
Yajnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has submitted that vide communication dated 22.9.2011, the petitioner was informed about seven deficiencies as noticed by the Inspection Committee. He has also submitted that all the seven deficiencies are still not cured by the petitioner.
2. Per contra, Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner, has made reference of the communications dated 8.10.2011 (Annexure-F page-35 to 37) and dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure-I page-47 and 48) and submitted that vide communication dated 8.10.2011, the petitioner has complied with the requirements and has cured the deficiencies. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 is, actually, satisfied about the compliance so far as all the seven deficiencies mentioned in the communication dated 22.9.2011 is concerned. He also submitted that now the only requirement which is being insisted upon by the respondent No.2 is the one which is mentioned in the communication dated 20.12.2011.
2.1 However, Mr. Yajnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has insisted that the seven deficiencies have not been cured and the respondent No.2 is not granting petitioner's application / case because most of the deficiencies mentioned in the communication dated 22.9.2011 still exist.
3. In aforesaid view of the matter, particularly in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon conjoint reading of the communication dated 8.10.2011 with communication dated 20.12.2011, the respondent No.2 is directed to place on record its clarification, in writing, on or before 9.5.2012, dealing with the petitioner's submission made in light of the communication dated 8.10.2011 and the communication of respondent No.2 dated 20.12.2011.
S.O.
to 9.5.2012.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top