Bombay High Court

SHUBHAM JAIPRAKASH PAGARE AND OTHERSversusMRS. ANITA AGNIHOTRI AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as there is no remaining relief for the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Shubham Jaiprakash Pagare and others, filed a contempt petition seeking enforcement of a direction that the respondents consider their representation for a scholarship in the Aircraft Maintenance course. The Court had earlier, on 10 February 2025, granted the petitioners liberty to make such representation to respondents No.2 and No.4. Subsequently, on 27 April 2015, respondent No.2 informed the petitioners that no scholarship was available and rejected the representation. The Court observed that the representation had already been decided under the contempt order and that no further relief remained. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of with no order for the petitioners.

Issues considered

What relief, if any, remains for the petitioners after the representation for the scholarship was rejected?

Subjects

contempt
scholarship
representation
High Court
petition dismissed

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                  916- C. P. 298-2013.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            916 CONT. PETITION NO. 298 OF 2015
                     IN WP/7394/2014

          Shubham Jaiprakash Pagare And Others
                         VERSUS
             Mrs. Anita Agnihotri And Another
                             ...
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
                            ...

                   CORAM :        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                  ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                   DATED :        FEBRUARY 27, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    None for the petitioners.

2.    However, on going through the record, it appears that under the

order of contempt dated 10th February 2025, this Court has granted

liberty to the petitioners for making representation to respondent

Nos.2 and 4 for grant of scholarship for the course of “Aircraft

Maintenance”. However, as per the order dated 27 th April 2015, it was

already communicated to the petitioners by respondent No.2 herein

that no such scholarship was available for the said course, and

therefore, representation made by the petitioners was rejected. The

said order appears to be passed after passing order under contempt,

wherein only direction was given to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to decide

the representation of the petitioners.
                                   (2)
                                                   916- C. P. 298-2013.odt
3.     Thus, the representation of the petitioners is already decided as

per the order under contempt, and therefore, nothing survives in this

petition.

3.     The contempt petition stands disposed of.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)                     (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                      JUDGE




YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…