Bombay High Court
Shri Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ... vs Jayshree Mukarjee And Another on 11 January, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:590-DB
980.CP.636.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONT. PETITION NO. 636 OF 2021
IN WP/3302/2015
WITH
CONT. PETITION NO. 67 OF 2023
IN WP/3303/2015
WITH
CONT. PETITION NO. 66 OF 2023
IN WP/3301/2015
TULJAI PRATISHTHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY SHRI SHAHAJI NARAYAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
JAYSHREE MUKHARJEE THE PRINCIPAL SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SPECIAL
ASSISTNACE AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Nimbalkar Aniruddha A.
AGP for Respondents: Mr. V.K. Kotecha
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 11.01.2024
PER COURT:
Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners in all these
petitions as also the learned AGP. We have also perused the affidavit-in-
reply as also the rejoinder.
2. By the common order passed in the petitioner's Writ Petition
980.CP.636.21.odt
No.3301/2015 with connected matters the following directions were
issued in paragraph No.26 :
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion
that the learned Counsel for the petitioners-institutes has made
out a case for causing indulgence. Resultantly, we allow the
petitions partly with the following directions:-
(i) The petitioners-institutes to submit fresh proposals to the
State Government for admitting the schools run by them to
grants within a period of two weeks from the date of the order
of this Court. The petitioners may also pray for personal
hearing, if they wish.
(ii) The State Government to grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners, if so claimed, within a period of two weeks after
receipt of the proposals.
(iii) The State Government to decide the proposals of the
petitioners-institutes on its merits, within a period of ten weeks
from the date of the order of this Court, without putting a rider,
that as the petitioners-institutes had already submitted an
undertaking to the State Government that they will not claim
the benefit of grant-in-aid, the proposals of the petitioners-
institutes can not be considered.
3. The stand being taken by the respondents in the affidavit-in-
reply is to the effect that in the light of these directions a fresh decision
has been taken which has been communicated to the Commissioner of
Disabilities on 27.01.2022 (Exhibit-A) in C.P. No.636 of 2021. Learned
advocate for the petitioners strenuously submits that the very stand
which is now being resorted to about turning down the petitioners'
proposal was a subject matter before this Court, wherein, by the order of
which disobedience is being claimed was passed. He would advert our
attention to paragraph Nos.21 to 24, wherein it has been inter alia
980.CP.636.21.odt
observed by this Court as to how the petitioners' institutes were being
discriminated while granting proposal for grant in aid to increased
strength of students.
4. He also adverts our attention to a similar communication
that was placed on record in Contempt Petition No.66/2023 and
Contempt Petition No.67/2023 dated 24.01.2023 (Exhibit R-1).
5. It does appear that the stand being taken by the respondent-
State not only in the affidavit-in-reply but also that was being taken
before this Court in the Writ Petitions is exactly the same and is to the
effect that considering the financial burden it was decided that a
comprehensive plan applicable to the entire State would be evolved
before the grant-in-aid or permissions are provided/granted.
6. That may be so, however, considering the operative part in
the common judgment and order passed in the Writ Petition (supra), the
decision was to be taken by the State Government on the petitioners'
proposal afresh on its own merits. The only direction was not to reject
the proposals on the ground that the petitioners had submitted an
undertaking to the State Government not to claim grant-in-aid. There
was no specific direction to treat the petitioners equally with some other
institutes to whom grant-in-aids were provided as was observed in
paragraph Nos.21 to 24.
7. Taking into account the limitations on the powers of this
Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, we do not see that there
980.CP.636.21.odt
is any wilful disobedience of which cognizance can be taken under Article
215 of the Constitution read with the provisions of Contempt of Courts
Act.
8. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2024 19:00:37
