Allowed

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Feb 2020CA/1283/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed civil applications filed by an applicant seeking to add paragraphs to an existing contempt petition to detail non-compliance with court orders regarding unpaid salary and dues within an educational institution.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; directions issued for amendment of the contempt petition by 10.02.2020 and filing of an affidavit by the respondent Education Officer detailing steps taken.

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

901-CA-1283-20 (+1)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1283 OF 2020

¶5

IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.366 OF 2017
IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6222 OF 2016

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1284 OF 2020

¶9

IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.366 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6222 OF 2016

¶10

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli… Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶13

....

¶14

Mr. Nitin K. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawle, Advocate for the Respondent-State.

¶15

....

¶16

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
 R.G. AVACHAT, JJ

¶17

DATED : 05th FEBRUARY, 2020

¶18

PER COURT:-

¶19

.These civil applications are filed by the
petitioner with a prayer to add paragraphs in the

¶20

contempt petition i.e. 6A and 6B, and 15-A to 15-J.

¶21

901-CA-1283-20 (+1) 2

¶22

2.It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the subsequent events occurred in the
matter post issuance of the notice by this Court
prompted the petitioner to file these applications with
a prayer for addition of paragraphs so that these
events can be brought to the notice of this Court and
these events only further the case of the petitioner
that till the date, there is no compliance of the order
of this Court. It is submitted that initially Mr.
Gajanan Susar who was discharging the duties of
Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad was made a party to the
petition and the grievance was raised that though the
decision of this Court brought to the notice of the
then Education Officer Mr. Susar, no action was
initiated. It is submitted that subsequently Mr. Susar
was transferred from Aurangabad and in his place Mr.
B.B. Chavan is holding the position as Education
Officer. It is further submitted by Mr. Chaudhari that
Mr. Chavan, the Education Officer (Secondary) though
started the exercise of deciding the representation in
view of the order of this Court and called upon the

¶23

parties for hearing, the management and more
particularly respondent no.4, who is working as Head
Mistress in the Urdu High School, Hattesingpura,

¶24

901-CA-1283-20 (+1) 3

¶25

Aurangabad being run by respondent – management, is
paying no heed to the directions of the Education
Officer, nor attending the hearing. Thus, non
responsive approach of respondent no.4 – Shaikh Ruksana
Abdul Gani, Head Mistress of the Urdu High School leads
to deprival of the benefits to the petitioner. It is
also submitted that the Education Officer issued
directions for stopping the salary of respondent no.4 –
Head Mistress, but there was no change in the non
responsive approach of respondent no.4 – Head Mistress.

¶26

3.Considering the fact that the Writ Petition
No.6222/2016 filed by the petitioner was disposed of
with a direction on the backdrop of the fact that the
grievance raised in the petition was of failure to pay
the unpaid salary and other dues of the petitioner and
in spite of the order of this Court passed in the year

¶27

2016, till date i.e. even after four years, the
representation is pending for decision, we deem it
appropriate to direct the respondent no.2 – Education
Officer (Secondary) to file an affidavit in reply
indicating the steps taken by him. It may not be out of
place to state that if the respondent no.4 – Head
Mistress is not paying any heed to the directions of
the Education Officer even after stopping her salary,

¶28

901-CA-1283-20 (+1) 4

¶29

the Education Officer (Secondary) is not prevented from
taking other steps such as stopping of non salary
grants to the society. Considering the fact that the
school wherein the petitioner was earlier working and
subsequently transferred to Urdu High School (Girls),
Roshan Gate, Aurangabad are aided schools, the
Education Officer (Secondary) also to make a statement
to that effect in the affidavit in reply. Affidavit be
filed within one week from today.

¶30

4.Applications are allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘A’ in respective application. Amendment to be
carried out on or before 10th February, 2020.

¶31

5. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned

¶32

A.G.P.

¶33

 ( R.G. AVACHAT )(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

SPR

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Anil Ramdas Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aabasaheb Dattatraya Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pushpa Shivaji Bhosale Vs Prakash Saundaji Patil District Supply Offier Beed

Sikandar Gafoorbhai Tamboli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amar Marutirao Naikwade Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Damodhar Sanduji Pagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another