Disposed

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v. Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune

Bombay HC25 Sept 2018CP/186/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigations sought directions to the State to act against educational institutions that allegedly inflated student strength to obtain grants, following the 2011 Special Pat Padtalni report. Noting that show cause notices had already been issued and were undecided, the court disposed of the public interest litigations, contempt petition, writ petitions and civil applications, expect

What the court decided

AI extract

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs Mahaveer Damodhar… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) pil18.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶4

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Mah And Ors

¶7

Mr. Deshmukh Sachin S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶8

Mr. A. B. Girase, G.P. for Respondent/State in all matters.

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:6445 OF 2012

¶11

¶12

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶13

Chandoba@chandrakant Gangaram Bhalerao

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Ors

¶16

Mr. Shendage Manushri S And A S Rasal , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶17

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10247 OF 2018

¶18

¶19

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶20

Jai Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Through Secretary And

¶21

Another

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶24

( 2 ) pil18.12

¶25

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶26

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10249 OF 2018

¶27

¶28

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶29

Mahila Vikas Mandal Aurangabad Through President And Others

¶30

VERSUS

¶31

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶32

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶33

WITH

¶34

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10248 OF 2018

¶35

¶36

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶37

Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Buldhan Through President And

¶38

Another

¶39

VERSUS

¶40

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶41

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶42

WITH

¶43

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10250 OF 2018

¶44

¶45

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶46

Chatrapati Shivaji Secondary And Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Through

¶47

Head Master A

¶48

VERSUS

¶49

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶50

( 3 ) pil18.12

¶51

Mr. Kolhare S.r. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶52

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10251 OF 2018

¶53

¶54

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶55

Saraswati Primary School Ravankola And Others

¶56

VERSUS

¶57

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶58

Mr. Kolhare S.r. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶59

WITH

¶60

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10246 OF 2018

¶61

¶62

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶63

Hindustani Education Society Through Secretary And Another VERSUS

¶64

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra

¶65

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶66

WITH

¶67

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10402 OF 2018

¶68

¶69

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶70

Tukaram Naik Primary Vidyalaya Udgir Through Head Master And

¶71

Others

¶72

VERSUS

¶73

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶74

( 4 ) pil18.12

¶75

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶76

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10405 OF 2018

¶77

¶78

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶79

Hindustani Education Society Through Secretary And Another

¶80

VERSUS

¶81

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶82

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶83

WITH

¶84

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10407 OF 2018

¶85

¶86

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶87

Amrutbaba Vikas Sanstha Andora Through Incharge Head Mistress

¶88

VERSUS

¶89

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶90

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶91

WITH

¶92

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10409 OF 2018

¶93

¶94

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶95

The Statmodern Shikshan Parasarak Mandal Latur Through Secretary

¶96

And Others

¶97

VERSUS

¶98

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶99

( 5 ) pil18.12

¶100

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶101

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10403 OF 2018

¶102

¶103

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶104

National Educatin Society Latur Thorugh Secretary And another

¶105

VERSUS

¶106

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶107

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶108

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10404 OF 2018

¶109

¶110

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶111

Vijay Subhash Gunjal And Others

¶112

VERSUS

¶113

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶114

Mr. Irale Patil D.R. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶115

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10399 OF 2018

¶116

¶117

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶118

The Maharashtra Rajya Manya Khajgi Prathmik Shikshak Va Shikshketr

¶119

Karmachari Mah

¶120

VERSUS

¶121

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶122

( 6 ) pil18.12

¶123

Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶124

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10398 OF 2018

¶125

¶126

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶127

M G Marathi Sindhi Hindi Vidhyalay Jalna Through Headmaster And Others

¶128

VERSUS

¶129

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶130

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶131

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10400 OF 2018

¶132

¶133

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶134

Ujjwala Madhavrao Kothalikar

¶135

VERSUS

¶136

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶137

Mr. Katneshwarkar P.R. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶138

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10401 OF 2018

¶139

¶140

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶141

Akhil Bharatiya Urdu Shikshak Sangh Through State President

¶142

VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶143

( 7 ) pil18.12

¶144

Mr. Gapat Pramod B , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶145

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10410 OF 2018

¶146

¶147

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶148

Narasham Prathmik Shala Through Headmaster And Another

¶149

VERSUS

¶150

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶151

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶152

WITH

¶153

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10408 OF 2018

¶154

¶155

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶156

Kai Tatyasaheb R F Patil Shikshan Mandal Deogaon Through President

¶157

And Another

¶158

VERSUS

¶159

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶160

Mr. Phatale Sagar S , Advocate for Petitioner

¶161

WITH

¶162

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10406 OF 2018

¶163

¶164

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶165

Pachora Taluka Co Operative Education Society PachoraThrough

Chairman And Another

VERSUS

( 8 ) pil18.12

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶170

Mr. Phatale Sagar S , Advocate for Petitioner

¶171

WITH

¶172

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10395 OF 2018

¶173

¶174

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶175

Lok Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha Walandi Through Headmaster Govind Pandharinath Mane

¶176

VERSUS

¶177

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶178

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶179

WITH

¶180

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10394 OF 2018

¶181

¶182

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶183

Fala E Millat Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nilanga Through President An

¶184

VERSUS

¶185

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶186

Mr. Irpatgire A.n. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶187

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10397 OF 2018

¶188

¶189

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶190

Gram Vikas Bahuudddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha Sindkhedthrough

¶191

( 9 ) pil18.12

¶192

Secretary And Another

¶193

VERSUS

¶194

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶195

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶196

WITH

¶197

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10396 OF 2018

¶198

¶199

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶200

Jagdamba Mahila Sevabhavi Sanstha Latur Through Secretary And

¶201

Another

¶202

VERSUS

¶203

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶204

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶205

WITH

¶206

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10905 OF 2018

¶207

¶208

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶209

Vinayak Manoharrao Padmawar

¶210

VERSUS

¶211

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶212

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶213

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10900 OF 2018

¶214

¶215

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶216

( 10 ) pil18.12

¶217

Jivandeep Model School Kalutanda Through Headmaster And Others VERSUS

¶218

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶219

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶220

WITH

¶221

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10899 OF 2018

¶222

¶223

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶224

Laxmibai Primary School Udgir Through Head Master And others

¶225

VERSUS

¶226

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶227

Mr. Rodge Pratap G., Advocate for Petitioner

¶228

WITH

¶229

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10903 OF 2018

¶230

¶231

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶232

Shri Shivaji Mofat Education Society Kandhar Through Secretary And

¶233

Another

¶234

VERSUS

¶235

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶236

Mr. Panpatte V.S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶237

WITH

¶238

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10897 OF 2018

¶239

¶240

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶241

( 11 ) pil18.12

¶242

Guru Kanhayya Prathmik Vidya Mandir Through Headmistress And

¶243

Others

¶244

VERSUS

¶245

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶246

Mr. Pawar Ajay D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶247

WITH

¶248

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10896 OF 2018

¶249

¶250

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶251

Bauddha Tatwdnyan Kendra Dhule Through President And Another VERSUS

¶252

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶253

Mr. Pawar Ajay D. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶254

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10894 OF 2018

¶255

¶256

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶257

Rajeshwari Primary School Udgir Through Headmaster

¶258

VERSUS

¶259

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶260

Mr. Rodge Pratap G. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶261

WITH

¶262

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10895 OF 2018

¶263

¶264

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶265

( 12 ) pil18.12

¶266

Shubhasneha Shikshan Sanstha Aurangabad Through President Anita Sudhakar Pagare A

¶267

VERSUS

¶268

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶269

Mr. Thombre S.S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶270

WITH

¶271

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10893 OF 2018

¶272

¶273

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶274

Laxman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Latur Through President And

¶275

Another

¶276

VERSUS

¶277

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶278

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶279

WITH

¶280

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10892 OF 2018

¶281

¶282

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶283

Janpath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Latur Through Secretary And

¶284

Another

¶285

VERSUS

¶286

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶287

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶288

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10888 OF 2018

¶289

( 13 ) pil18.12

¶290

¶291

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶292

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Yeshwant Nagar Through Secretary

¶293

And Another

¶294

VERSUS

¶295

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶296

Mr. Panpatte V.S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶297

WITH

¶298

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10891 OF 2018

¶299

¶300

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶301

Masoom Educational And Welfare Society Parbhani Through Secretary

¶302

And Others

¶303

VERSUS

¶304

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶305

Mr. Munde Sambhaji G. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶306

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10889 OF 2018

¶307

¶308

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶309

Tanzimi Centers Ismalpura Through President And Others

¶310

VERSUS

¶311

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶312

Mr. Syed Masood Chand , Advocate for Petitioner

¶313

WITH

¶314

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10890 OF 2018

¶315

¶316

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶317

Akhil Bhartiya Urdu Shikshan Sanghthana Through State President

¶318

VERSUS

¶319

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶320

Mr. Syed Masood Chand , Advocate for Petitioner

¶321

WITH

¶322

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11014 OF 2018

¶323

¶324

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶325

Sant Gadgebaba Primary School Meharun Through Headmaster Sunil

¶326

Dayaram Patil

¶327

VERSUS

¶328

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶329

Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶330

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11013 OF 2018

¶331

¶332

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶333

Ratna Jain Primary School Pratapnagar Through Headmaster Uttam

¶334

Hiraman Chaudhari

¶335

VERSUS

¶336

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶337

( 15 ) pil18.12

¶338

Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶339

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11448 OF 2018

¶340

¶341

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶342

Roshan Urdu Primary School Babhalgaon Through Headmaster Mohsinali Murtuzali Sayy

¶343

VERSUS

¶344

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶345

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶346

WITH

¶347

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11446 OF 2018

¶348

¶349

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶350

Smt Vatsalabai Naik Balvikas Mandal Through Presidentnaresh Bahusing Naik

¶351

VERSUS

¶352

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶353

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶354

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11447 OF 2018

¶355

¶356

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶357

The Christian And Missionary Alliance Church Of India Through

( 16 ) pil18.12

Managing Director A

VERSUS

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶362

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶363

WITH

¶364

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:11449 OF 2018

¶365

¶366

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶367

Maharashtra Bahujan Mahila Vikas Sanstha Through Secretary Nita

¶368

Devidas Dongre

¶369

VERSUS

¶370

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶371

Mr. Kolhare S.R. And Kochar Pundlik S. , Advocates for Petitioner WITH

¶372

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:31 OF 2012

¶373

Jaikumar Mukundrao Jadhav

¶374

VERSUS

¶375

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

¶376

Mr. Talekar S.B. And U.R. Awate , Advocates for Petitioner

¶377

WITH

¶378

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶379

¶380

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.:18 OF 2012

¶381

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra

¶382

( 17 ) pil18.12

¶383

VERSUS

¶384

Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune

¶385

Mr. Deshmukh Sachin S. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶386

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10389 OF 2018

¶387

¶388

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶389

Amrutbaba Vikas Sanstha And Ora Through Incharge Head Mistress

¶390

VERSUS

¶391

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mish Ra And Others

¶392

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶393

WITH

¶394

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10388 OF 2018

¶395

¶396

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶397

National Educatin Society Latur Thorough Secretary And another VERSUS

¶398

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶399

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶400

WITH

¶401

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10387 OF 2018

¶402

¶403

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶404

( 18 ) pil18.12

¶405

Modern Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Latur Through Secretary And

¶406

Another

¶407

VERSUS

¶408

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶409

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶410

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10386 OF 2018

¶411

¶412

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶413

Rashida Begum Urdu High School Harsool Through Head Master VERSUS

¶414

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶415

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶416

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10390 OF 2018

¶417

¶418

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶419

Lok Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha Walandi Through Head Master Govind

¶420

Pandharinath Mane

¶421

VERSUS

¶422

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶423

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. In C.P. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶424

( 19 ) pil18.12

¶425

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10391 OF 2018

¶426

¶427

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶428

Fala E Millat Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nilanga

¶429

Through President

¶430

VERSUS

¶431

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶432

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. In C.P. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶433

WITH

¶434

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10392 OF 2018

¶435

¶436

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶437

Jgadamba Mahila Sevabhavi Sanstha Latur Through Secretary And

¶438

Another

¶439

VERSUS

¶440

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶441

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. In C.P. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶442

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.:10393 OF 2018

¶443

¶444

CONT. PETITION NO.:186 OF 2014

¶445

Gram Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sansta Sindkhed Through

¶446

Secretary And Another

¶447

VERSUS

¶448

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra And Others

¶449

Mr. Irpatgire A.N. In C.P. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶450

WITH

¶451

WRIT PETITION NO.:9115 OF 2018

¶452

Gramin Bal Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Bhusani Through Secretary

¶453

Dnyaneshwar Tukaram M

¶454

VERSUS

¶455

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶456

Mr. Patil Dnyaneshwar J , Advocate for Petitioner

¶457

WITH

¶458

WRIT PETITION NO.:9116 OF 2018

¶459

N G Nathani Sindhi Hindi Vidhyalay Jalna Through President And

¶460

Others

¶461

VERSUS

¶462

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶463

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. And Jagtap Sumedha T. , Advocates for

¶464

Petitioner

¶465

WITH

¶466

WRIT PETITION NO.:9154 OF 2018

¶467

Veerbhadreshwar Shikshan Sanstha Parali Through President And

¶468

Another

¶469

VERSUS

¶470

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶471

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. And Jagtap Sumedha T. , Advocates for

¶472

Petitioner

¶473

WITH

¶474

WRIT PETITION NO.:9168 OF 2018

¶475

Shri Ganesh Yuvak Sanstha Beed Through Secretary Mahendra

¶476

Purushottam Mekhe And Anr

¶477

VERSUS

¶478

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶479

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶480

WRIT PETITION NO.:9169 OF 2018

¶481

Kranti Junior Adhyapak D. Ed. Mahavidyalay Through Secretary Sonia

¶482

Dinesh Bagade

¶483

VERSUS

¶484

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶485

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶486

WITH

¶487

WRIT PETITION NO.:9170 OF 2018

¶488

Bhartiya Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir Through Secretary Kashinath

¶489

VERSUS

¶490

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶491

Mr. Patil Dnyaneshwar J. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶492

WITH

¶493

WRIT PETITION NO.:9171 OF 2018

¶494

Mahila Vikas Mandal Aurangabad Through President Mathyu Vijay Shrisaunder And Others

¶495

( 22 ) pil18.12

¶496

VERSUS

¶497

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶498

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner WITH

¶499

WRIT PETITION NO.:9172 OF 2018

¶500

Pachora Taluka Sahakari Shikshan Sanstha Through Chairman And

¶501

Another

¶502

VERSUS

¶503

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶504

Mr. Phatale Sagar S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶505

WITH

¶506

WRIT PETITION NO.:9173 OF 2018

¶507

Jai Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Through Secretary

¶508

Jaiprakash Vishwanath

¶509

VERSUS

¶510

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶511

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶512

WITH

¶513

WRIT PETITION NO.:9174 OF 2018

¶514

Tatyasaheb R F Patil Shikshan Mandal Deogaon Through President And

¶515

Another

¶516

VERSUS

¶517

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶518

Mr. Deshmukh Mahesh S. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶519

WITH

¶520

WRIT PETITION NO.:9175 OF 2018

¶521

Muslim Education And Welfare Association Beed Through President Sk

¶522

Samir Ahmed

¶523

VERSUS

¶524

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶525

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. And Jagtap Sumedha T. , Advocates for Petitioner

¶526

WITH

¶527

WRIT PETITION NO.:9297 OF 2018

¶528

Haji Salahuddin Ahmed Education And Social Welfare Society Through

¶529

Secretary

¶530

VERSUS

¶531

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶532

Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶533

WITH

¶534

WRIT PETITION NO.:9418 OF 2018

¶535

Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Buldhan Through President And

¶536

Others

¶537

VERSUS

¶538

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶539

Mr. Sapkal V.D. , Advocate for Petitioner

¶540

( 24 ) pil18.12

¶541

WITH

¶542

WRIT PETITION NO.:9181 OF 2018

¶543

Ujjawala Madhavrao Kothalikar VERSUS

¶544

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶545

Mr. Katneshwarkar P. R., Advocate for Petitioner

¶546

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATED : 25th September, 2018

¶547

PER COURT:

¶548

. The Public Interest Litigation Nos. 18/2012 and 31/2012 seek direction against the authorities to initiate action on the basis of the defaulting institutions based on the report of Special Pat Padtalni 2011. According to the petitioners, the report of the Pat Padtalni has been received in the year 2011. Large scale malpractices have been noticed. However, the authorities have shown lethargy in taking any action against the defaulting institutions. The defaulting institutions have garnered huge amounts of the public funds in the nature of grants, so also, appointed excess teachers and received salary and non salary grants. The authorities are not initiating any action against the said

¶549

erring institutions.

¶550

Writ petitions are filed individually by some of the institutions receiving notice from the authority as to why criminal action shall not be taken against them pursuant to the report of Special Pat Padtalni of the year 2011 and the strength of student in the subsequent years.

¶551

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the intervenors in the Public Interest Litigation submit that in Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of 2012 this court under order dated 11th October, 2012 directed hearing of the Public Interest Litigation along with Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 with connected matters. However, this order was not brought to the notice of this court by the petitioners in Public Interest Litigations and the State and this Public Interest Litigation continued independently Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 is decided independently by this court. The Division Bench of this Court under judgment and order dated 24.10.2013 decided the writ petition challenging the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 and thereby struck down clauses 1.2 to 1.7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners and the intervenors, the said clauses specifically dealt with filing criminal cases against the institutions wherein the students were shown absent. The said clauses have been struck down. This court also came to the conclusion that the methodology

¶552

adopted for conducting the Special Pat Padtalni was erroneous. According to them the respondents can not initiate criminal action on the basis of the Pat Padtalni report of the year 2011 as the same has been set aside by this court in its judgment dated 24.10.2013 in Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012. The learned counsel further submits that, the First Information Report has been lodged under the order of dictation. The higher officers have directed the Education Officer to lodge the criminal cases and submit the report against all these institutions. The issuance of notices itself is bad in law. The notices on the basis of the Pat Padtalni which has been set aside by this court in Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 can not be the basis for issuing notices and filing criminal cases. No independent mind has been applied. The communications are by the higher officers and the State to the Education Department to lodge the criminal cases. It is clear that the petitioners say would not be considered by the respondents.

¶553

Mr. Girase, the learned Government Pleader submits that by filing an affidavit in Public Interest Litigation No. 31 of 2012 the State has brought to the notice of this court the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 dated 24.10.2013. The State has not suppressed the judgment. This court passed various orders in the present Public Interest

¶554

Litigation thereby refusing any relief to the writ petitioners and State has made a statement that the action would be taken against the erring institutions. On the basis of the same, notices have been issued to the erring institutions, though in the Pat Padtalni report 1652 erring institutions are mentioned. The notices have been issued to only 780 schools after verifying the record.

¶555

According to the learned Government Pleader the action would be taken by the State after receiving the reply and taking the decision upon the show cause notices issued to them. The present writ petitions filed by individual institutions are pre-mature. The learned Government Pleader submits that in similar cases this court in Writ Petition No. 8242 of 2018 under order dated 24.07.2018 had dismissed the petition on the ground that it is pre-mature and in this writ petition this court also refused to grant interim orders.

¶556

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶557

There can not be any debate on the proposition that erring institutions have to be dealt with iron hand. If the institutions garners

¶558

public funds in the shape of grants by showing excess number of students, then such institutions have to be dealt with all rigours under law.

¶559

We are confronted with the various orders passed by this court.

¶560

The Government had issued resolution dated 02.05.2012 pursuant to the Special Pat Padtalni conducted in or about October – 2011. The Government Resolution prescribed for taking various steps. The said Government Resolution was assailed in Writ Petition bearing No. 4168 of 2012. Unfortunately, it appears that the order passed on 12th October, 2012 in Public Interest Litigation Nos. 18 of 2012 and 31 of 2012 was not brought to the notice of the court and the said Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 was independently decided by this court on 24.10.2013. The said writ petition was challenging the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 issued on the basis of Pat Padtalni of 2011 was issued. This court in the said judgment observed thus:

¶561

In the instant matter, prior to issuing impugned Government Resolution, a novel method has been evolved by the State Government of deploying employees of Revenue Department for verifying attendance of the students in the schools under the special drive

¶562

undertaken by the State. As has been referred to above, the State government does have powers to appoint officers for the purposes of superintendence and inspection, however, there has to be an authorization in respect of powers and duties in favour of such officers, as may be prescribed. In the instant matter, it does not appear that the special drive conducted by the Revenue officials has been under the orders, as contemplated by Section 48 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. It would be open for the State Government to cause inspection of the schools through the officers appointed in that behalf excluding officers of the Education Department, however, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 48, the State shall prescribe powers and duties of such officers. The provisions of Section 48 contemplate an order prescribing powers and duties of the officers appointed for conducting inspection of the schools. In the instant matter, the procedure, as prescribed under Section 48, does not appear to have been followed.

¶563

It is quite surprising that the State Government suspects impartiality and loyalty of its own officers serving in the Education Department. Sweeping allegations have been made against the officers working in the Education Department. It is also not clarified as to what steps are taken by the State Government against erring officers whose integrity is suspected. The functions of the officers of Revenue Department are quite distinct and it can not be inferred that they are conversant with the functioning of the Education Department. It is also intriguing to note that while doubting integrity of the officers of the Eduction Department, whether the State Government indirectly proposes to certify integrity and character of all the officers of the Revenue Department. The stand taken by the State Government, in its affidavit in reply, is not at all acceptable and we put on record our displeasure as regards the sweeping allegations made in the affidavit in reply concerning officers functioning in the Education Department.

¶564

( 31 ) pil18.12

¶565

As has been observed above, in the instant matter, the directives issued under the impugned Government Resolution in clauses 1.2 to 1.7, are contrary to the express provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. An order, issued against an employee, directing him to retire compulsorily before attaining age of superannuation, has been set aside by the High Court in the matter of Sukanya Apte & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others , reported in 2007 (5) Bom. C.R. 472:[2007 (6) All MR 59] and in the matter of Namdeo Bikkad & another Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1772 of 1997, decided on 14.07.2006) , holding that since the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder do not provide for compulsory retirement of an employee, such an order is unsustainable in law. In the instant matter, directives have been issued by the Government under the Government Resolution, which are clearly in contravention of the Act and the Rules.

¶566

This court while concluding the judgment had clarified that the powers of the State Government to initiate criminal prosecution against the management, the private staff, Headmasters, Teachers and other employees is not taken away and in the event it is found that private management or its employees have indulged in activities which amount to an offence under the provision of Indian Penal Code or any other enactment it would be open for the State Government to initiate

¶567

prosecution against such management and the employees concerned. It is further observed that the management and the employees can not be prosecuted and charged with commission of an offence merely because during special drive attendance of the students is found to be less than 50%. The management as well as employees of the school if are suspected to be guilty of fabricating of record or indulging in any unlawful activities and are responsible for creating false record to demonstrate inflated strength of students in school with a view to extract inadmissible financial gain, can be prosecuted by taking recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

¶568

The judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 has given powers to the State Government to take action if it is found by the State Government that the schools have fabricated the record or indulged in unlawful activities and are found responsible for creating false record to demonstrate more students in the school with a view to get inadmissible financial gain. It is for the Government on perusal of the record to arrive at a conscious conclusion of the unlawful gain being obtained by the institutions.

¶569

Today only show cause notices are issued to the petitioners filing

¶570

independent writ petitions and the intervenors. The explanation is sought from these institutions. The respondent authorities are duty bound to consider the explanation given by the petitioners and also the orders passed in the present Public Interest Litigations from time to time or also the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 dated 24.10.2013. All these aspects will have to be considered by the State Government while deciding the show cause notices and arrive at a conscious conclusion of the institutions garnering inadmissible financial benefits or otherwise.

¶571

This court can not stall the criminal law being set into motion if the State finds that the institutions have defaulted and erred in extracting inadmissible financial benefits. If at all the decision is taken by the State after considering the explanation and still the parties are aggrieved the remedy is open for them to assail the action of the State.

¶572

It appears that the State Government and its superior authorities have issued communications to the Education Officers to lodge the criminal cases, the same will have to be read to mean against the erring institutions and not as a matter of policy against each and every institution. Naturally, the authority while taking the decision upon the

¶573

( 34 ) pil18.12

¶574

show cause notices will consider the explanation given by the petitioners, the records and the orders passed by this court in Public Interest Litigations and also Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2012 dated 24.10.2013, and then take a conscious decision upon it.

¶575

As the show cause notices issued by the respondents are not finally decided we refrain from commenting upon the merits of the same. As the State has initiated further course of action the purpose of the Public Interest Litigations also does not survive. We expect the State to take decision on the show cause notices expeditiously.

¶576

As the purpose of the Public Interest Litigations stand served, the Public Interest Litigations are disposed of. So also as the actions are initiated, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Writ Petitions also stand disposed of. Civil Applications stand disposed of.

¶577

[ S. M. GAVHANE, J. ]

¶578

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶579

ass/pil18.12

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v. Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v. Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shafiq Shaikh Umar Vs Shaikh Naseer Ahmed Pasha Ansari

Mubarak Kha Yusuf Kha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karmvir Pratishthan, Ram Nagar, Jalna Thr. Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs the State of Mah and Ors.