Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that though the petition contains larger prayers but appropriate direction to respondent no.2 may suffice for the interest of justice.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that despite repeated applications for seeking grant in respect of classes in the primary section after rejecting one application in the year 1994 no response is given to the petitioner's application.
In my view this petition, at this stage, is not required to be examined on merits as to whether the petitioner's claim is just and proper, as in lack of any decision on the part of the administrative authority i.e. respondent no.2, no adjudication is warranted on the demand of the petitioner. Hence, without entertaining the petition on merits, this Court is of the view that when the petitioner has approached repeatedly to the concerned authorities and at one point of time when the District Primary Education Officer has recommended issuance of grant on account of petitioner's school being eligible, it was duty cast upon the respondents especially respondent no.2, if he is approached by way of appropriate application/representation to respond to this and pass reasoned order so that in case if it is adverse to the petitioner, the same could be subject matter of challenge and the Court may undertake judicial scrutiny and judicial review thereon.
Petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent no.2 with appropriate application/representation. In case, if the petitioner prefers such application/representation, the same shall be decided within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order thereof. With this observation, petition is disposed of. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top