Bombay High Court
Vijayalaxmi Shivanand SarsambeversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Secretary of School Education and Ors.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Since the Education Officer eventually complied with the order, the contempt petition was disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the Education Officer (Respondent No.5) failed to decide a proposal within one week as ordered on 18‑11‑2025. The order was communicated on 24‑11‑2025, but the officer did not comply. Respondent No.5 submitted an affidavit‑in‑reply offering an unconditional apology and stating that the proposal was finally approved on 17‑08‑2026. The Court accepted the apology, noted that the order had been complied with, and therefore disposed of the contempt petition. The Court further clarified that the disposal of the contempt petition does not bar the petitioner from challenging the officer’s order in a separate proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to decide the proposal within the stipulated time amounted to contempt of the Court’s order.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- civil procedure
- education officer
- compliance
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
24-CP-152-2026.doc
Digitally signed
by HARISH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.08.18
19:54:09 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONT. PETITION NO. 152 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12237 OF 2025
Vijayalaxmi Shivanand Sarsambe ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Secretary Of School Education And Others ...Respondents.
——————
Ms. Supriya S. Koregave i/b Mr. Sandeep Shripal Koregave for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 18, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present petition, contempt is alleged of the order dated
18.11.2025, which had directed the Education Oicer to decide the
proposal within a period of one week from the date of communication
of the order. The order was duly communicated to Respondent No. 5 on
24.11.2025, and the petition came to be iled as there was non-
compliance.
2. Learned AGP tenders the aidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 5.
The aidavit tenders an unconditional apology for the delay, and it is
stated that the proposal has been approved on 17.08.2026. The copy of
Harish 1 of 2
24-CP-152-2026.doc
the order is annexed to the petition.
3. We accept the unconditional apology tendered by Respondent
No. 5.
4. As there is compliance with the order of 18.11.2025, the
contempt petition is disposed of.
5. It is clariied that the disposal of the contempt petition will not
preclude the petitioner from raising any challenge to the order passed
by the Respondent No. 5 Education Oicer.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 2 of 2
Checking your session…