Shridhar P. Prabhu v. Sandeep Sangve the Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region

Bombay HC24 Feb 2025CONPW/53/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court contempt petition disposed of as not entertained; limits of contempt jurisdiction – correctness of a compliance order not examinable in contempt; no wilful or deliberate disobedience of writ directions found; Deputy Director of Education; MEPS Rules Rule 25A and Rule 26; absorption and approval of transfer; liberty for independent challenge to rejection order dated 11/03/2024.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; contempt jurisdiction not invoked and the petition disposed of as not entertained, with the clarification that the order dated 11/03/2024 is open to independent challenge. ¶¶31

Shridhar P. Prabhu vs Sandeep Sangve the Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; contempt jurisdiction not invoked and the petition disposed of as not entertained, with the clarification that the order dated 11/03/2024 is open to independent challenge.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's proposal by order dated 11/03/2024 constitutes wilful or deliberate breach or disobedience of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021 (order dated 17/08/2022), warranting invocation of contempt jurisdiction. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

The refusal to grant approval by order dated 11/03/2024 did not amount to wilful or deliberate breach or disobedience of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021; consequently the Court was not inclined to invoke contempt jurisdiction.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the correctness or otherwise of an order passed in compliance of the directions issued in the Writ Petition cannot be gone into.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

Correctness of the order dated 11/03/2024 is open to independent challenge by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings, and the observations made in this order will not come in the way of such an independent challenge.obiter¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt – Alleged non-compliance of directions in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021 (order dated 17/08/2022 quashing the refusal of approval to transfer and directing reconsideration, possibly as absorption under Rule 25A and Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules) – Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal by order dated 11/03/2024 – Held: in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the correctness or otherwise of an order passed in compliance of the writ directions cannot be gone into; the refusal did not amount to wilful or deliberate breach or disobedience of the writ directions; contempt jurisdiction not invoked; contempt petition disposed of as not entertained; correctness of the order dated 11/03/2024 left open to independent challenge, with observations not to prejudice such challenge (A. S. Chandurkar & M. M. Sathaye, JJ.; 24 February 2025).

¶1

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶2

Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.02.25 18:23:44 +0530

¶3

1 48 conpw-53-24.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.53 OF 2024 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1081 OF 2021

¶7

Shridhar P. Prabhu … Petitioner V/s

¶8

Sandeep Sangve The Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region and Others ….Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kalpesh J. Nansi, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader for the State – respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

Ms. Manorama Mohanty with Ms. Malika Mondal i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co., Advocates for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1] By this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021 (Sridhar P. Prabhu vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelwani Mandal & Ors.) vide order dated 17/08/2022. He therefore seeks invocation of contempt jurisdiction.

¶17

2] In the aforesaid writ petition, the order dated 16/12/2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Education refusing to grant approval to the transfer of the petitioner came to be challenged. While setting aside

BDP-SPS

1/3

48 conpw-53-24.doc

that order in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021, this Court on 17/08/2022 observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:-

¶22

“11. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Director of Education shall reconsider the proposal. It may consider the case as that of absorption, which is certainly permissible under Rule 25A so also Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules.”

¶23

“12. The Deputy Director of Education will only be required to consider whether the petitioner possesses the necessary qualification to the post and whether the petitioner is absorbed and the post is available. The proposal shall be decided on its own merits expeditiously preferably within three months. If the proposal is approved, the petitioner would be entitled to continuation of service.”

¶24

3] Mr. Arshad Shaikh, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the light of the adjudication of the earlier writ petition, the only option available with the respondent was to approve the proposal in the matter of absorption of the petitioner. According to him, by passing an order dated 11/03/2024, the respondent has sought to re-open the said issue and reject the proposal. He therefore submits that this Court may invoke contempt jurisdiction.

BDP-SPS

2/3

48 conpw-53-24.doc

4] Per contra, Mr. Abhay Patki, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that proposal was considered on merits and after holding that the petitioner possesses necessary qualification and that the post in question was available has refused to approve the proposal. Assuming that such rejection was improper, same could be challenged independently but there was no case for invoking contempt jurisdiction.

¶29

5] We have perused the order passed in Writ Petition No.1081 of 2021 as well as the decision taken by the respondent on 11/03/2024 rejecting the proposal. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the correctness or otherwise of an order passed in compliance of directions issued in the Writ Petition cannot be gone into. We do not find that by refusing to grant such approval there has been wilful or deliberate breach or disobedience of the directions issued in the Writ Petition. We are therefore not inclined to invoke contempt jurisdiction.

¶30

Needless to state that correctness of the order dated 11/03/2024 is open to challenge by the petitioner if he is so advised. It is clarified that the observations made in this order would not come in the way of the petitioner if an independent challenge is raised to the order dated 11/03/2024 in appropriate proceedings.

¶31

6] The contempt petition is disposed of as not entertained.

¶32

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶33

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶34

BDP-SPS

¶35

3/3

Shridhar P. Prabhu v. Sandeep Sangve the Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shridhar P. Prabhu v. Sandeep Sangve the Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjivani Suryakant Pawar vs Divisional Chairman/Secretary

Sunita Ajay Gupta vs Senior Inspector of Police, Kandivali Police Station

Suyash Suryakant Patil vs National Medical Commission Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Vinit Vinod Raje vs University of Mumbai

Rajesh Kumar Son of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Union of India through General Manager

Shramik Kisan Seva Samiti Ratnagiri Having Office vs Active Friends Circle Ratnagiri Throu.Its Secretary Shri Bharatkumar Pandharinath Dahihande and Anr.