Disposed

Saw Kamlabai D Vispute Prathmik Vidya Mandir Nakane through Headmistress v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2020WP/9581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of writ petitions contesting recovery orders passed against educational institutions. The court held the impugned orders set aside automatically upon the respondent authority offering a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders automatically stand set aside. Petitioners directed to appear on 03.02.2020 to place documents and give written explanation for a fresh decision.

Saw Kamlabai D Vispute Prathmik Vidya Mandir Nakane… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 wp 9572.19+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

26 WRIT PETITION NO. 9572 OF 2019

¶4

PANCHASHIL PRATHMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH
HEADMISTRESS BHARTI RAMBHAU MANIK

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 9573 OF 2019

¶10

GURU KANHAYYA PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH ITS
HEADMISTRESS RITA BHAYYASAHEB SHINDE

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

...

¶14

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 9574 OF 2019

¶16

ADARSH PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH ITS
HEADMASTER MANDAKINI SHEKHAR WAGH

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶19

...

¶20

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 9575 OF 2019

¶22

LATE SAU. PADMARAJE KADAMBANDE PRATHAMIK VIDYA
MANDIR THROUGH ITS HEADMISTRESS ASHWINI SHEKHAR

¶23

SHINDE

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶26

2 wp 9572.19+

¶27

...

¶28

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO. 9576 OF 2019

¶30

GURUDATTA PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH ITS
HEADMISTRESS YEDBAI RAMA BACCHAV

¶31

VERSUS

¶32

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶33

...

¶34

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 9577 OF 2019

¶36

KUSUMTAI SURYAWANSHI PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR
THROUGH ITS HEADMASTER PRAVINKUMAR VINAYAK GAVIT

¶37

VERSUS

¶38

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶39

...

¶40

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO. 9578 OF 2019

¶42

SITAMAI PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH ITS
HEADMASTER CHANDRAKANT ARJUN PATIL

¶43

VERSUS

¶44

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶45

...

¶46

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO. 9579 OF 2019

¶48

SAKUMAI PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH ITS

¶49

HEADMASTER RAVINDRA AADHAR PATIL

¶50

VERSUS

¶51

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶52

3 wp 9572.19+

¶53

...

¶54

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶55

WRIT PETITION NO. 9580 OF 2019

¶56

SHRI SANT NARHARI PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR THROUGH
ITS HEADMISTRESS JAYSHREE SHRIKANT SONAR

¶57

VERSUS

¶58

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶59

...

¶60

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶61

WRIT PETITION NO. 9581 OF 2019

¶62

SOW. KAMLABAI D. VISPUTE PRATHAMIK VIDYA MANDIR
THROUGH ITS HEADMISTRESS CHITRA ATMARAM DEORE

¶63

VERSUS

¶64

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶65

...

¶66

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶67

WITH

¶68

28 WRIT PETITION NO.9836 OF 2019

¶69

HAZI BADLU SARDAR URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL THROUGH ITS
HEADMASTER MOHD. KALEEM MOHD. YAQOOB AND ANOTHER

¶70

VERSUS

¶71

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶72

...

¶73

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pawar Ajay D.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. S. B. Narwade
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Ms. V. D. Jadhav

¶74

4 wp 9572.19+

¶75

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE: 23^rd JANUARY, 2020

¶76

PER COURT:

¶77

1.According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, without notice to the petitioners and
without hearing the petitioners the impugned
orders of recovery are passed.

¶78

2.Ms. Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent
no. 4 submits that the petitioners were called for
hearing. The respondent / authority has given
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but the
petitioners on their own volition did not
participate in the hearing. The said statement is
disputed by the petitioners.

¶79

3.Ms. Jadhav, learned counsel, on instructions
of respondent no. 4 submits that respondent no. 4
is ready to give fresh hearing to the petitioners
and take decision afresh.

¶80

4.In light of that, the petitioners shall
appear before respondent no. 4 on 03.02.2020 and

¶81

5 wp 9572.19+

¶82

may place all the documents on which they rely
before respondent no. 4. The petitioners may give
written explanation on the said date. The
Education Officer, shall thereafter take decision
afresh with regard to the claim of recovery from
the petitioners on its own merits, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of one (01) month
from the date the petitioners appear before him.
While taking the fresh decision, the impugned
orders would not be an impediment. The same
automatically stands set aside as the Education
Officer has offered to hear the petitioners afresh
and pass fresh orders.

¶83

5. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶84

No costs.

¶85

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶86

marathe

Saw Kamlabai D Vispute Prathmik Vidya Mandir Nakane through Headmistress v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saw Kamlabai D Vispute Prathmik Vidya Mandir Nakane through Headmistress 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubhangi Bhausaheb Rahinj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santaram Chandrabhan Surase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanuman Namdevrao Jakate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amrish Ishwarlal Jain Vs Central Vigilance Commission through Section Officer and Others

Satyendra Shivram Jindam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shitalnath Zumbarlal Sonpethekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others