Bombay High Court
Head Master, Adv. Diliprao Sopal ... vs Smt. Vandana Krusna, Secretary And Ors. on 5 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:33780-DB
1 batch contempt.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.257 OF 2022
Head Master, Kauthali Vidyalaya, Kauthali .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.258 OF 2022
Head Master, Adv. Diliprao Sopal Vidyalaya .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.259 OF 2022
Head Master, Mungshi Vidyalaya, Mungshi .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.260 OF 2022
Head Master, Sharadchandra Vidyalaya, Bavi .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.261 OF 2022
Head Master, Kasari Vidyalaya, Kasari .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.262 OF 2022
Head Master, Shardadevi Prashala Vairag .... Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others .... Respondents.
B.D.Pandit-SPS
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:26:27 :::
2 batch contempt.doc
Mr. Vishwasrao S. Deokar, Advocate for the petitione(s) in all the above
contempt petitions.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the respondents-State in Contempt Petition
No.257 of 2022.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the respondents-
State in Contempt Petition No.258 of 2022.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the respondents-State in Contempt Petition
No.259 of 2022.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the respondents-State in Contempt Petition
No.260 of 2022.
Mrs.N.M. Mehra, AGP for the respondents-State in Contempt Petition
No.261 of 2022.
Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the respondents-State in Contempt Petition
No.262 of 2022.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 5th August 2025
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J :
These contempt petitions have been filed with identical prayers. For the
sake of brevity, prayers in Contempt Petition No. 257 of 2025 are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"a) Rule be issued and record and proceedings be called
for;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call Contemnors
to prison for such a period, as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper for having committed habitual, deliberate
and intentional breach of the orders dated 23.01.2003,
23.09.2003, 07.09.2006, 10.10.2006, 27.03.2012,
04.09.2013, and 21.04.2015 (Exh. A to F).
c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to impose such
deterrent penalty on the Contemnors as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper for having committed
habitual deliberate and intentional breach of the orders
dated 23.01.2003, 23.09.2003, 07.09.2006, 10.10.2006,
27.03.2012, 04.09.2013, 08.10.2013 and 21.04.2015.
(Exh. A to F).
B.D.Pandit-SPS
3 batch contempt.doc
d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
Respondent to sanction the costs of the petition be
provided;
e) any such and further order and/ or direction be given
as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
2. In the year 2003, several writ petitions were filed by the Head Master(s)
of different schools situated within the district of Solapur viz. Writ Petition
No.5975 of 2022 by the Head Master, Kauthali Vidyalaya, Kauthali; Writ
Petition No. 465 of 2003 by the Head Master, Diliprao Sopal Vidyalaya, Surdi;
Writ Petition No.466 of 2003 by the Head Master of Sharadchandra
Vidyalaya, Bavi; Writ Petition No.5933 of 2002 by the Secretary, Munghsi
Vidyalaya, Mungshi; Writ Petition No.5831 of 2002 by the Head Master
Shardadevi Prashala Vairag; Writ Petition No.5901 of 2002 by the Head
Master, Kasari Vidyalaya, Kasari. All these writ petitions were disposed of by
separate orders passed on 23rd January 2003 with a direction to the
respondents to take appropriate decision regarding the prayers made by the
petitioner(s) keeping in mind the Resolution dated 28 th June 1994. The writ
Court further directed that such decision shall be taken preferably within
three months from the date of passing of the said order. Aggrieved by the
inaction on part of the respondent-Authorities who did not take a decision to
grant sanction/approval for one additional post of Senior Clerk, the schools
approached the writ Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3662 of 2006, 3651 of
2006, 3652 of 2006, 4837 of 2005, 3653 of 2006, 3654 of 2006. Those writ
petitions again came to be disposed of by separate orders passed on 10 th
October 2006 permitting the petitioner(s) to approach the respondent-
Authorities who were directed to pass an order within four months after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) and other persons who
were likely to be affected by the decision taken thereon. About six years
thereafter, the petitioner(s) laid contempt petitions alleging wilful violation of
the order dated 23rd January 2003 and subsequent orders passed by the writ
Court. In the proceedings of the said contempt petitions, a stand was taken
by the respondent-Authorities that the demand for sanction/approval of one
additional post of Senior Clerk cannot be accepted in view of the Resolution
dated 23rd October 2013 which superseded the previous Government
Resolution issued on 28th June 1994. Notwithstanding the restrictions under
Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2013, the petitioner(s) and other
schools came before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5999 of 2014, 2969 of
B.D.Pandit-SPS
4 batch contempt.doc
2015, 2970 of 2015, 2971 of 2015, 2972 of 2015, 2973 of 2015, 6070 of
2014, 6071 of 2014, 6072 of 2014 and 6073 of 2014. These writ petitions
were also disposed of without adjudicating the demand made by the
petitioners. However, the prayers at clauses (b) and (c) were granted by the
writ Court observing that there was no justification whatsoever for denying
the demand made by the petitioners. Just to indicate, these writ petitions
were disposed of without taking an affidavit-in-reply from the respondents.
3. Mr. Vishwasrao Deokar, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in this
batch of contempt petitions referred to series of orders passed by this Court
in particular order dated 17th January 2024 by which an opportunity was
granted to the respondents to comply with the order passed by the writ
Court, if not already complied. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has
also taken us through the order passed in Writ Petition No.5999 of 2014 and
connected matters which were disposed of by an order dated 21 st April 2015
in terms of the prayer clauses (b) and (c). In the affidavit-in-reply filed in
Contempt Petition No.261 of 2022, following stand has been taken by the
respondents :
"9. I say that, as per the orders passed by the Deputy Director
of Education, communication was made to the Petitioner
Institute to forward the fresh proposal in accordance with law.
Inspite of this clear directions, the Petitioner Institute has not
challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of
Education dated 14.11.2007.
10. I say that, the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on
10.10.2006 in Writ Petition No. 3662 of 2016 and alongwith
other petitions, was fully complied with by the Respondent and
an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education on dated
14.11.2007.
11. I say that, inspite of the order, the Petitioner has again
filed Contempt Petition No. 253/2012 in Writ Petition
No.3662/2006, Contempt Petition No. 254/2012 in Writ
Petition No.3652/2005, Contempt Petition No. 255/2012 in
Writ Petition No.3651/2006, Contempt Petition No. 256/2012
in Writ Petition No.3654/2006 and Contempt Petition No.
257/2012 in Writ Petition No. 3653/2006.
12. I say that, in the above mentioned Contempt Petition, this
Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 27.03.2012 to issue notice
B.D.Pandit-SPS
5 batch contempt.doc
to the Respondents under Rule 9(1) of Contempt of Courts.
Accordingly, the then Additional Chief Secretary, School
Education and Sports Department filed an affidavit dated
02.05.2013 placing on record the efforts taken by the
Respondents to comply the orders passed by this Hon'ble
Court. I say that, this Contempt Petition came up for hearing
on 04.09.2013, when Their Lordships have passed an order
observed that "Let such an impression be not given in the
present case and we are sure that the final authority will now
take a decision and before the next date i.e. 07.10.2017". I say
that, this Contempt Petition was listed for hearing on
07.10.2013. When this Hon'ble Court has directed the
Secretary, School Education and Sports Department to
immediately present before this Hon'ble Court on 08.10.2013
personally."
4. Under clause (b) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
expression "civil contempt" has been defined to mean wilful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or
wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The learned counsel for
the petitioner(s) submits that in the previous proceedings before this Court
the Chief Secretary and other higher authorities of the State Government
were called in the Court and they had assured the Court that they would
comply the order passed by the writ Court/contempt Court. However, as we
glanced through the orders passed in previous proceedings and take a note
of the stand taken by the respondents, the Education Officer or Deputy
Director or, for that matter, the Director of Education had no power to create
new post in terms of Government Resolution dated 23 rd October 2013.
Therefore, we have formed an opinion that mere allegation of disobedience
of the order passed by this Court, if any, is not sufficient to continue with
these contempt petitions. There is no written undertaking filed by the
respondents in the previous proceedings before this Court, the breach of
which could have been alleged in these contempt petitions. Furthermore,
we find that a batch of contempt petitions under Contempt Petition No.257
of 2022 and connected petitions came to be dismissed holding that there
was no wilful and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
The contempt Court held as under :
B.D.Pandit-SPS
6 batch contempt.doc
"On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents
from time to time it appears that an action cannot be taken against
the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 for willfully disobeying the orders of this Court in the writ
petitions filed in the year 2002, contempt petitions filed in the year
2003 and the writ petitions filed in the year 2006. As soon as the
writ petitions filed in the year 2006 were decided, the petitioners
were heard and the Deputy Director of Education conveyed the
decision to the petitioners. Thereafter, the matter was placed before
the High Power Committee as the same could have decided the
applications for sanctioning the posts of the non-teaching staff. It
appears that the matter was pending before the two departments of
the Government and since the same had huge financial
implications, a decision was taken in the matter and the
Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 was brought into effect.
In the aforesaid background, the respondents cannot be held to be
guilty of willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on
the ground that the Government Resolution dated 28.6.1994 was
not considered while taking the decision in the matter. In view of
subsequent development, i.e. the issuance of the Government
Resolution dated 23.10.2013 it would not be possible for this Court
to direct the respondents in the contempt petitions to take a
decision on the applications of the petitioners on the basis of the
Government Resolution dated 28.6.1994. Though we find that there
was some delay on the part of the respondents in taking an action
in furtherance of the orders passed by this Court from time to time,
it cannot be said that the said inaction or delay was intentional and
deliberate. The respondents can not be held guilty for contempt
unless it is established that the respondents have deliberately and
willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. We do not find any
material to show that there was willful and deliberate disobedience
of the orders. In the absence of willful or deliberate disobedience,
the contempt petitions cannot be proceeded further.
In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petitions are disposed of
with no order as to costs. The notice stands discharged."
B.D.Pandit-SPS
7 batch contempt.doc
5. The proceedings which were started by the petitioners in the year 2003
cannot continue for another two decades on one pretext or the other. In
that context, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioners
have abused the process of the Court in filing series of contempt petitions.
The Court is required to act with great circumspection as far as possible and
in unclear case the Court should not proceed in the matter. In "Baradakanta
Mishra vs The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr ", 1974 (1) SCC 374 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction should be
exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond
reasonable doubt.
6. In view thereof, Contempt Petition Nos.257 of 2022, 258 of 2022, 259
of 2022, 260 of 2022, 261 of 2022 and 262 of 2022 are dismissed.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.]
B.D.Pandit-SPS
