JUDGMENT : F. M. Reis, J. Heard Mr. Y. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice. 4. Though the petitioner has raised different contentions in the above Writ Petition, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we find that the petition can be conveniently disposed of by granting a limited relief to the petitioner. 5. Shri Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the petitioner has filed an application dated 26.2.2015 based on the recognition by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India seeking recognition by the respondent no.1. 6. Shri Nigel Costafrias, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, however, disputes the validity of such recognition, as according to him, the respondent no.2 is the concerned Authorised Association in terms of law. 7. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions, as the issue with regard to recognition will have to be examined after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2, we find it appropriate to dispose of the above Writ Petition, by directing the respondent no.1 to take a decision on the said application dated 26.2.2015 on its own merits after hearing the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law preferably within two months. 8. Needless to say that all the contentions of both the parties on merits are kept open. Any decision taken by the respondent no.1 shall be subject to any further orders that may be passed in the Writ Petition no.324/2015 filed by the respondent no. 2. 9. Rule stands disposed of accordingly.