Bombay High Court

JYOTI NAMDEVRAO MOREversusSHRI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The direction was complied with and the contempt petition is disposed.

Summary

The petitioner, Jyoti Namdevrao More, filed a contempt petition challenging the alleged non‑compliance of a court direction to the Education Officer (Primary) to decide his proposal dated 26‑02‑2018. The court examined the order dated 24‑10‑2019, which showed that the Education Officer had indeed considered the proposal and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner's counsel sought a further adjournment, but the court found that the statutory direction had been fulfilled. Consequently, the court held that there was no breach of the contempt order. The petition was therefore dismissed and the matter disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the direction to the Education Officer (Primary) to decide the petitioner's proposal was complied with
Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed on the basis of compliance

Subjects

contempt
education officer
compliance
petition disposed
court direction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31070-DB

                                                                       581.2019CP

                                                 1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                         5 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2019
                                      IN WP/10449/2018
                                  JYOTI NAMDEVRAO MORE
                                             VERSUS
                  SHRI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH
                                   SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                ...
                 Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Kharat h/f Mr.Panpatte V.S.
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.B. Patil
                 Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Mr. J.R. Patil

                                       CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                     VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                       DATE     :    27.07.2026

                 P.C. :
                 1]            Though, learned counsel Mr. Kharat holding for
                 Mr. Panpatte seeks time, but on going through the order
                 under contempt, it is evident that there was direction to the
                 Education Officer (Primary) to take decision on the proposal
                 of the petitioner dated 26.02.2018.
                 2]            On going through the order dated 24.10.2019, the
                 proposal of the petitioner appears to be decided by the
                 Education Officer (Primary) by giving the opportunity to the
                 petitioner.
                 3]            As such, the direction is complied with and
                 nothing survives in this petition. In view of the same, the
                 petition stands disposed of.



                 [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]              [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
                         JUDGE                             JUDGE
                 sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…