44 Wp-15482-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15482 OF 2024 Archana Prataprao Warke and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Chetan patil, Mr. Prathamesh P. Magadum, Ms. Siddheshwari R. Chavan for the Petitioner. A. A. Naik, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : October 10, 2025. P. C. : 1. The present petition impugns the order dated 12th April 2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner no.1. 2. The grievance raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that impugned order rejects the proposal by listing several deiciencies without giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to cure those deiciencies. 3. We ind that impugned order, while listing several deiciencies, did not give any opportunity to the management to cure the said deiciencies. There is violation of principles of natural justice which Patil-SR 1 of 2 44 Wp-15482-2024.doc necessitates that the matter be remanded for consideration afresh. The impugned order is, therefore, directed to be treated as show cause notice and explanation be submitted by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.2, within a period of four weeks from today. If there are any further deiciencies, Respondent No.2 to communicate the same to the Petitioners and grant an opportunity to the Petitioners to cure the same. 4. The Respondent No.2 to decide the proposal afresh after taking into consideration the explanation to be submitted by the Petitioner – management, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight weeks after the explanation is submitted by the Petitioners. In event the approval is granted to the appointment of Petitioner No.1, Respondent No.2 to allot Shalarth ID expeditiously. 5. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR 2 of 2