Bombay High Court
CP/227/2022 of YASHODEEP SHIKSHAN KHADI GRAMOUDYOG AND BAHUUDDESHIY PRATISHTAN, PILIV Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2022 Yashodeep Shikshan Khadi Gramoudyog ] and Bahuuddeshiy Pratishtan, Piliv ] and another ] Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents .....
9-CP-227-2022 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2022
Yashodeep Shikshan Khadi Gramoudyog
]
and Bahuuddeshiy Pratishtan, Piliv
]
and another
]
Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
]
Respondents
.....
Mr. Y.B. Lengare (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Rutik A. Kashid, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. (through V.C.) a/w Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P, for Respondent – State.
Dr. Ganpat More, Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division present.
…..
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2026.
P. C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the present Petition, the contempt is alleged of the order dated 25th February, 2021 by which Respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Education was directed to consider grant of staf approval to the Petitioners - School within a period of six weeks and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the proposal of the Petitioners for grant of staf approval for 5th to 7th standards for the academic years 2014 to 2019. Shailaja 1 of
9-CP-227-2022 (C).doc
2. An Aidavit is iled on behalf of Respondent No.1 tendering unconditional apology for the delay in deciding the proposal. It is stated that authority to grant approval to the 5th standard in the School lies with the State Government as per the Government Resolution dated 8th July, 2005 and the powers are not with the Oice of the Divisional Deputy Director of Education. It is stated that the approval granted by the then Deputy Director of Eduction without any authority, hence the said approval itself is illegal and void-ab- initio. Therefore, the State Government has taken decision that the Petitioners are not entitled to the staing pattern, as claimed.
3. Copy of the said order is served upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
4. As the order now stands complied, we are not inclined to entertain the Contempt Petition. It is open for the Petitioners to challenge the impugned order by way of iling Writ Petition.
5. The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly. [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Shailaja 2 of