Desarda Public School through Amol Kalidas Dandgavhal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shubham S. Kote i/b Mr. P. C. Mayure Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11349, 11350, 11355, 11358, 11360, 11366, 11380, 11385, 11389 of 2025 Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shubham S. Kote i/b Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11403 and 11404 of 2025

¶123

Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.11665 and 11678 of 2025

¶124

Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.11653 and 11664 of 2025

¶125

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Atharva D. Khedkar, Advocate for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.11356, 11363, 11365, 11367 and 11368 of 2025

¶126

Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader for the Respondent – State in all Petitions

¶127

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶128

DATE : 24.09.2025

¶129

PER COURT :-

¶130

These petitions were taken up for consideration on

¶131

18.09.2025. The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved by an

¶132

order dated 01.09.2025 issued by the respondent State of Maharashtra, whereby, recognition of the schools run by the petitioners, to be part of the “Raje Yashwantrao Holkar English Medium Residential School Scheme” has been withdrawn. Under the said scheme the students belonging to ‘Dhangar’ community, were

¶133

6 of 8

¶134

(( 7 )) 947-WP-11349-2025+group

¶135

permitted to be admitted in these English medium residential schools, for which certain grants were released to these petitioners.

¶136

The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent State did not issue notice to them before taking such a drastic action and that therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

¶137

On 18.09.2025, when these petitions were taken up for consideration, the following statement was made by Mr. Girase, the learned Government Pleader.

¶138

“6. At this stage, Mr. Girase, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, makes a statement that status quo as on today shall be maintained in respect of the schools run by the petitioners in these petitions and that appropriate statement can be made in the next week with regard to the manner in which the respondent – State Authorities would be resisting the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and if required, an appropriate statement can be made, which may eventually dispose of the petitions.”

¶139

Today, when these petitions are called out for hearing, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions of respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Secretary of the Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department of the State of Maharashtra, makes a statement that the impugned

¶140

7 of 8

¶141

(( 8 )) 947-WP-11349-2025+group

¶142

order dated 01.09.2025, shall be withdrawn by the respondent State. Thereupon, notices will be issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why action ought not to be taken against them on the basis of material said to be available with the respondent State against the petitioners. It is further stated that principles of natural justice shall be followed and after giving due opportunity to the petitioners, the respondent State, through its functionaries shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

¶143

The aforesaid statement is recorded as an undertaking to

¶144

this Court.

¶145

In the light of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent State, nothing survives in these petitions and accordingly, they are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶146

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]

¶147

SMS

¶148

8 of 8

Desarda Public School through Amol Kalidas Dandgavhal v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desarda Public School through Amol Kalidas Dandgavhal v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradnya Nitin Patil Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Prashant Suryabhan Zalte and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust Shirdi through Its Administrative Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vss School Run by Vindhyachal Shikshan Sanstha Thorugh Its Member Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Shri Vidnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha Jalna through Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Pradip Baburao Mahale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others