Bhairavnath Gramvikas Pratishthan vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bhairavnath Gramvikas Pratishthan vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Restoration of both examination Centres of the Petitioner — the Centre for the 10th standard examination and the Centre allotted for the 12th standard February/March/April 2025 examinations — with the impugned cancellation order thereby losing its efficacy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's examination Centres — the Centre conducting the 10th standard examination and the Centre allotted for the 12th standard February/March/April 2025 examinations, permanently cancelled by the Maharashtra State Board after two instances of copying — stood restored, rendering the impugned cancellation ineffective.

Court's answer

In the light of the documents marked ‘X’, both examination Centres of the Petitioner have been restored, and the impugned order has lost its efficacy.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 362 of 2026 — Bhairavnath Gramvikas Pratishthan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.). Grievance: after two instances of copying at the Centre conducting the 10th standard examination, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education permanently cancelled that Centre, as well as the Centre allotted to the Petitioner for the 12th standard February/March/April 2025 examinations. Before the Court, the Board's advocate produced two photostat letters both dated 22nd December 2025 (Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Indapur to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune; and that Officer to the Divisional Secretary of the Board), taken on record and collectively marked 'X' for identification. In their light, both examination Centres of the Petitioner were restored and the impugned order was stated to have lost its efficacy; the Petitioner's Senior Advocate thereupon sought disposal, and the Writ Petition was disposed of. No statute or precedent case was cited; the order rests entirely on the restoration evidenced by the 'X' communications.

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.01.12 13:58:55 +0530

909.WP-362-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2026

Bhairavnath Gramvikas Pratishthan ….Petitioner Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents ----

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar and Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Mrs. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.

Mrs. P.M. Joshi Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Shyamali Gadre a/w. Ms. Mrunal Tavade i/b. Little and Co. for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

P.C. :-

In this case, the grievance of the Petitioner Education

Society was that two instances of copying were noticed at the Centre conducting the 10^th standard examination, and consequently, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, permanently cancelled the said Centre, as well as the Centre allotted for conducting the 12^th standard examination for the February/March/April 2025 examinations.

The learned Advocate for the Board has placed before us, two photostat copies of two letters, both dated 22^nd December,

1 of 2

Gauri Gaekwad

909.WP-362-2026.odt

One is addressed by the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Indapur, to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune, and the other addressed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune to the Divisional Secretary of the Board. Both these communications (two pages) are taken on record and collectively marked as ‘X’ for identification.

In the light of the documents marked ‘X’, both examination Centres of the Petitioner have been restored. The learned Advocate for the Board further submits that, in view thereof, the impugned order has lost its efficacy.

In view of the above, the learned Senior Advocate for

the Petitioner submits that the Petition may be disposed off.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off .

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

2 of 2

Gauri Gaekwad