Piyush Vitthal Ambale vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Sectetary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Piyush Vitthal Ambale vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Sectetary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions: (a) impugned order dated 25th July, 2024 not to be treated as rejection; pending proposal dated 9th July, 2024 stands restored to the file of Respondent No.5; (b) contents of the impugned order treated as notice; Management to submit a revised proposal with the documents sought (optionally with written submissions and case law) within 30 days; (c) Respondent No.5 to follow due procedure and pass a reasoned order on the revised proposal within 45 days; (d) if the proposal is rejected, aggrieved parties free to avail permissible legal remedy; if accepted, due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner to be followed; no view expressed on the Petitioner's claim; Rule discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25th July, 2024 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur — which contained objections to the pending proposal dated 9th July, 2024 — should be treated as its rejection, and whether the Management ought first to have been afforded an opportunity to explain away the deficiencies or place additional documents on record before final consideration of the proposal.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 25th July, 2024 shall not be treated as rejection of the pending proposal dated 9th July, 2024; the said proposal stands restored to the file of Respondent No.5.

Ratio / Principle

The contents of the impugned order dated 25th July, 2024 shall be treated as a notice to the Management.

Key takeaways

The Management shall revise the proposal and place the documents asked for along with it before Respondent No.5; written submissions, if desired, along with case law would be placed on record with the revised proposal, and this exercise will be completed within a period of 30 days.ratio¶29
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.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 16223 of 2024 — oral judgment dated July 17, 2025 delivered Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J., Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ. The Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur had passed an order dated 25th July, 2024 containing objections to a pending proposal dated 9th July, 2024. The Court disposed of the Petition directing that: the impugned order shall not be treated as a rejection and the pending proposal stands restored to the file of Respondent No.5; the contents of the impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the Management; the Management shall revise the proposal, place the documents asked for along with it, and may add written submissions and case law, completing this exercise within 30 days; thereafter Respondent No.5 shall follow the due procedure laid down in law and pass a reasoned order on the revised proposal within 45 days. The Court expressly expressed no view or opinion on the Petitioner's claim, leaving Respondent No.5 at liberty to decide independently; if the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved parties may avail the remedy permissible in law, and if accepted, the concerned Authorities would follow the due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner. Rule was made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of the parties, and discharged.

122 wp 16223-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16223 OF 2024

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.24 11:46:54 +0530

Piyush Vitthal Ambale .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

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

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl.G.P. a/w P. B. Chavan, 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.

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

122 wp 16223-24.odt

of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Suffice it to say that, the impugned order dated 25^th July, 2024 contains certain objections raised by the Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, 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 25^th July, 2024 shall not be treated as rejection of the pending proposal dated 9^th July, 2024. The said proposal stand s restored t o the file of Respondent No.5.

b. The contents of the impugned order dated 25^th July, 2024 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

122 wp 16223-24.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