Disposed

Anuradha Gangadhar Singanwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2021WP/3957/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning non-forwarding of a proposal by a respondent to the Education Officer, the court directed the respondent to transmit the proposal with objections. The court avoided internal committee squabbles and quashed the pending civil application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall have direction to submit the proposal for the Education Officer with complete details. The pending Civil Application is disposed off.

Anuradha Gangadhar Singanwad Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 925-WP.3957-20.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

925 WRIT PETITION NO.3957 OF 2020

¶5

ANURADHA GANGADHAR SINGANWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

WITH

¶7

CA/8861/2021 IN WP/3957/2020

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Panpatte V. S.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. G. Sangle.
Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor : Mr. V. G. Salgare.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
 S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : 07.09.2021

¶11

PER COURT:-

¶12

1.The only grievance voicedby the petitioner is that her
proposal for approval is not being forwarded by respondent
No.4 to the Education Officer – respondent No.2. The
petitioner does not contend that the proposal should be
decided in a particular way. She contends that the proposal
may be considered on its own merits.

¶13

2. Mr. Salgare, the learned advocate submits that he

¶14

 2 925-WP.3957-20.odt

¶15

represents the applicant who has filed Civil Application
No.8861 of 2021 seeking intervention, as he is the Secretary of
the Educational Society.

¶16

3.We do not wish to go into the internal squabbles of the
Management Committee of the Education Trust. The petitioner
is aggrieved only by the fact that respondent No.4 is not
forwarding her proposal. If the proposal is forwarded,
respondent No.2 would be empowered to decide the proposal
considering all factors, on its own merits. Whoever is a stake
holder can approach the Education Officer.

¶17

4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off.

¶18

5.We direct respondent No.4 to submit the proposal of the
petitioner for seeking approval, to respondent No.2, complete
in all respects, on or before 30.09.2021. Thereafter,
respondent No.2 shall follow the procedure laid down in law
and shall take into account all aspects necessary for deciding a
proposal for approval and would also consider objections, if
any, raised by any concerned party. We expect the Education
Officer to deliver a reasoned order on or before 31.12.2021.

¶19

 925-WP.3957-20.odt

¶20

¶21

6.The pending Civil Application does not survive and

¶22

stands disposed off.

¶23

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶24

vmk/-

Anuradha Gangadhar Singanwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Gangadhar Singanwad 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

Sunil Gangadhar Ghule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Ananda Bodre Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited Thro Its Chief Area Manager

Shashikant Magan Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Otehrs

Rameshchandra Radhakisan Somani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., and Others

Vicky Bhagwan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others