JUDGMENT : At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the designations of the respondent nos. 6, 8, 9 and 12 are modified as “Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi”, “Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Bokaro through General Manager”, “Bokaro Thermal Power Station through Chief Engineer having its office at Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District-Bokaro” and “Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro through its General Manager” respectively. 2. Office is directed to make necessary corrections in the cause title of the writ petition. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents particularly the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 12 to take appropriate decision in the matter of providing aid and fund to the petitioner-society in light of the statutory mandate of law as incorporated in the first proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013”) and to discharge their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations and to provide adequate aid and fund enabling it to meet the basic need of its members who are disabled persons keeping in view that the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 12 are the entities registered by the office of the Registrar of the Companies and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India under the Act, 2013 for undertaking CSR activities. 4. The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 primarily functioning in Gomia, District- Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand and involved in welfare and overall wellbeing of its members who are differently abled persons. The petitioner is a Self-Help Organisation of disabled persons and is working in the field of social welfare and overall support of the disabled persons since 2017. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 12 should discharge their corporate social responsibility as per the provisions of Section 135(5) of the Act, 2013. The first proviso to Section 135(5) of the said Act mandates that the company shall give preference to the local area/areas around where it operates. It is claimed that some grant was earlier given to the petitioner by the respondent no. The first proviso to Section 135(5) of the said Act mandates that the company shall give preference to the local area/areas around where it operates. It is claimed that some grant was earlier given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 8 in the year 2018, however the said respondent has not been giving regular financial assistance to the petitioner under CSR as per the provisions of Section 135(5) of the Act, 2013. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 12 to provide grant/financial assistance exclusively to the petitioner under ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ in terms with Section 135(5) of the Act, 2013. However, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer fresh representations before the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 12 explaining its nature of work along with the details of the same. On receipt of such representations, the said respondents, after verifying the credentials of the petitioner, will take appropriate decision with respect to extending the financial assistance to it under the CSR policy within a reasonable period. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and observation.