Dismissed

Moulana Abul Kallam Vikas Mandal, Latur and Another v. Nandkumar and Another

Bombay HC9 Feb 2016CP/268/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three Contempt Petitions challenging the State Authorities' failure to decide reopening the 8th standard in petitioner schools despite earlier High Court directions. The Court held that the absence of the required Zilla Parishad proposal justified non-action, finding no willful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions allowing the reopening of 8th standard in schools are disposed of as no disobedience of earlier orders is made out.

Moulana Abul Kallam Vikas Mandal, Latur and Another Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

267.15CP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

942 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 267 OF 2015 IN WP/5086/2014

¶5

BAHUJAN HITAY SEVABHAVI SANSTHA, LATUR AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

NANDKUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶8

WITH

¶9

943 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 268 OF 2015 IN WP/5085/2014

¶10

MOULANA ABUL KALLAM VIKAS MANDAL, LATUR AND

¶11

ANOTHER

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

NANDKUMAR AND ANOTHER WITH

¶14

944 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 269 OF 2015 IN WP/5084/2014

¶15

UDGIR EDUCATION SOCIETY, LATUR AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶16

NANDKUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶17

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kolhare S.R.

¶18

AGPs for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Kale and Mr. A.V. Deshmukh

¶19

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ. Dated: February 09, 2016

¶20

PER COURT :-

¶21

These Contempt Petitions allege disobedience of

¶22

the directions issued by this Court on 6^th August, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 5084/2014 and other connected

267.15CP

matters.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention to the order dated 6^th August, 2014 passed by this Court, and submits that, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein, were directed to take appropriate decision on the proposal of the petitioners in accordance with the policy prescribed by Government as well as provisions of Right to Education Act and rules framed thereunder, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of March, 2015. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, inspite of specific directions, the Respondent – State Authorities have not taken any decision on the said proposal.

¶27

In pursuant to the notices issued to the Respondents, the Respondent No.2 filed affidavit in reply. Along with the affidavit in reply, at Annexure `R-1' Colly at Page 35, the letter dated 20^th August, 2015 issued by the Director of Education (Primary), State of Maharashtra, Pune addressed to the petitioner – institution, is annexed. In the said letter addressed to the petitioner – institution, it is

¶28

267.15CP

¶29

¶30

stated that, since the proposal from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur is not received, the same could not be forwarded further to the State Government, so as to consider the request of the petitioners to open 8^th standard in the petitioner - school.

¶31

The learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 2^nd July, 2013 issued by the School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and in particular, clause (b) thereof, which provides for sending the proper proposal by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad through Director of Education (Primary), in case the additional classes/divisions are necessary in the school within the jurisdiction of the Zilla Parishad. The said clause (b) reads thus:-

¶32

“¼ c½ eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftYgk ifj"kn ;kauh R;kaps vf/kiR;k[kkyhy o [kktxh O;oLFkkiusP;k loZ 'kkGkapk vk<kok ?ksmu tsFks tsFks v'kk izdkjps oxZ vko';d vlsy R;kpk ,d fjrlj la;qDr izLrko f'k{k.k lapkyd ¼izkFkfed ½ ;kapsekQZr ekU;rslkBh 'kklukdMs ikBokok-”

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

267.15CP

when confronted with the provisions of the said clause, he is unable to inform this Court in respect of compliance of the said clause. According to him, since the proposal is forwarded by the Executive Officer, the same should have been decided by the Respondents in view of the directions issued by this Court on 6^th August, 2014 in Writ Petition No. 5086/2014 and other connected Writ Petitions.

¶38

In our opinion, in the first place, there should be willful disobedience of the order/direction issued by the High Court for initiating the contempt proceedings. However, upon perusal of the contents of the letter written by the Director of Education (Primary), State of Maharashtra, Pune dated 20^th August, 2015 addressed to the petitioner - institution, it is abundantly clear that, such proposal was not received from the Chief Executive Officer, Latur with necessary remarks. Therefore, it could not be forwarded to the Authorities/ State Government. Therefore, the said communication itself can be read as refusal to grant the permission to open 8^th standard in absence of specific recommendation by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶39

267.15CP

¶40

¶41

In the light of discussion hereinabove, viewed

¶42

from any angle, we do not see any disobedience of the orders/directions passed in Writ Petitions.

¶43

Hence Contempt Petitions stand disposed of.

¶44

( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )

¶45

SGA

Moulana Abul Kallam Vikas Mandal, Latur and Another v. Nandkumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moulana Abul Kallam Vikas Mandal, Latur and Another v. Nandkumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secondary and Higher Secondary Ashram School through Its Secretary Rehan Shafi Ahemad Kazi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kazi Ahemad Masud Ahemad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Dashrath Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhanudas Vaijanath Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattu Narayan Kalaskar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Udgir Education Society, Latur and Another Vs Nandkumar and Another