Vijay Maruti Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh the Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vijay Maruti Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh the Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed with directions: (i) impugned order dated 22.12.2023 not to be treated as rejection of the proposal dated 02.08.2023; (ii) proposal restored to the file of Respondent No.5; (iii) contents of the impugned order treated as notice to the Management; (iv) Management to submit a revised proposal with the documents asked for, optionally with written submissions and case law, within 30 days; (v) Respondent No.5 to pass a reasoned order on the revised proposal within 45 days following due procedure; (vi) if the proposal is rejected, aggrieved parties may avail permissible legal remedies; if accepted, Authorities to follow due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner; Rule discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, containing objections, could stand as a rejection of the Management's proposal dated 02.08.2023 without granting an opportunity to explain away the deficiencies or place additional documents on record.

Court's answer

An opportunity to explain away the deficiencies or place additional documents on record should have been granted to the Management before the order could be treated as final.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 shall not be treated as rejection of the pending proposal dated 02.08.2023.

Key takeaways

The proposal stands restored to the file of Respondent No.5.ratio¶¶26(a)
The contents of the impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the Management, which shall revise the proposal and place the documents asked for along with it.ratio¶¶27(b)
Written submissions (if desired) along with case law may be placed on record with the revised proposal, and this exercise shall be completed within 30 days.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.; oral judgment per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 15959 of 2024 (Vijay Maruti Gharat v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), decided 17.07.2025. The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, which contained objections to the Management's proposal dated 02.08.2023, was held not to constitute its rejection; an opportunity to explain away deficiencies or add documents should have been granted. The proposal stands restored to Respondent No.5; the order's contents operate as a notice. The Management is to file a revised proposal with the documents sought (optionally with written submissions and case law) within 30 days, and Respondent No.5 is to pass a reasoned order within 45 days following due procedure. On rejection, aggrieved parties may pursue legal remedies; on acceptance, the Authorities are to follow due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner. The Court expressly expressed no view on the merits of the Petitioner's claim. Rule discharged. No statute or precedent was cited.

14 wp 15959--24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15959 OF 2024

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.24 11:46:58 +0530

Vijay Maruti Gharat .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

Mr. Utkarsh Desai for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP for the State.

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

DATE: JULY 17, 2025

Oral Judgment (Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.):-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

2. Considering the various orders that have been passed by this Court

in similar set of circumstances, we do not have to advert to all the submissions

Laxmi

1/3

14 wp 15959--24.odt

of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Suffice it to say that, the impugned order dated 22^nd December, 2023 contains certain objections raised by the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, to which an opportunity to explain away the deficiencies or place additional documents on record, should have been granted to the Management.

The learned Advocate for the Management submits that if one opportunity is granted to them, a revised proposal would be placed before the said Authorities along with written submissions and certain case law.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with the following directions:-

a. The impugned order dated 22^nd December, 2023 shall not be treated as rejection of the pending proposal dated 2^nd August, 2023. The said proposal stand s restored t o the file of Respondent No.5.

b. The contents of the impugned order dated 22^nd December, 2023 shall be treated as a notice to the Management. The management shall revise the proposal and place the documents asked for, along with the proposal,

Laxmi

2/3

14 wp 15959--24.odt

before Respondent No.5. Written submissions, if desired, along with case law, would be placed on record along with the revised proposal. This exercise will be completed within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 would follow the due procedure laid down in law and pass a reasoned order on the revised proposal, within a period of 45 days.

c. It is needless to state that we have not expressed any view or opinion about the claim of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 is at liberty to arrive at a decision, independently.

d. In the event, the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to avail of the remedy permissible in law. If the proposal is accepted, the concerned Authorities would follow the due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner.

Rule is discharged.

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.]

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

Laxmi

3/3