Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHRI DIPAK SAVAI SARODEversusShri Ranjit singh Deol Through Its Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the directions were complied with, the contempt petition had no remaining issue, and the bailable warrant was recalled.

Summary

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon was subject to a bailable warrant in a contempt petition for allegedly not complying with the court's directions. The petitioner’s proposal, which had been pending, was finally decided on the same day the warrant was issued, and the court found that the directions had been complied with. The court therefore allowed the civil application seeking recall of the warrant and ordered the warrant recalled. It further directed the respondent (the Education Officer) to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the Advocates' Association for the delay and conduct. Consequently, both the civil application and the main contempt petition were disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the directions issued by the court were complied with by the respondent.
  • Whether the bailable warrant issued in the contempt petition should be recalled.
  • Whether costs should be imposed on the respondent for delay in deciding the proposal.

Subjects

  • contempt of court
  • bailable warrant
  • costs order
  • compliance with court directions
  • civil application
  • recall of order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34642-DB
                                                            952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026
                                          IN CP/75/2026

                   The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
                                            Versus
                                      Dipak Savai Sarode

                   __________________________________________________________
                   Mr. N. B. Patil for Applicant - State
                   Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Respondent
                   __________________________________________________________

                                             WITH
                                CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2026
                                       IN WP/13368/2025

                                         Dipak Savai Sarode
                                               Versus
                                Shri Ranjit Singh Deol And Others
                   __________________________________________________________
                   Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the Petitioner
                   Mr. N. B. Patil for State
                   __________________________________________________________

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

                                       DATE      : 06.08.2026

                   PER COURT :

                   1]                  Heard.


                   2]                  Although the bailable warrant issued against

                   Respondent No. 3 – the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla

                   Parishad, Jalgaon, in the main Contempt Petition is shown

                   as awaited, Respondent No. 3 is present before the Court.
                        Komal Kamble                                                 Page|1
                                                 952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026




3]                  The learned AGP has pointed out that, in

compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the

petitioner's        proposal      has    already     been      decided.         The

communication             dated    27.07.2026        addressed            to     the

concerned Principal has also been placed on record along

with the affidavit-in-reply, and a copy thereof has been

communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the

directions issued by this Court have been complied with.


4]                  The    petitioner      is   at    liberty       to     initiate

appropriate proceedings for challenging the rejection of his

proposal for grant of approval, if so advised. In view thereof,

nothing       survives      in     the    main       Contempt            Petition.

Consequently, the pending Civil Application seeking recall

of     the    order    issuing      the    bailable       warrant          against

Respondent No. 3 is allowed and the said order stands

recalled.


5]                  However,       considering         the       conduct            of

Respondent No. 3 and the delay in deciding the petitioner's

proposal, we deem it appropriate to impose costs upon

Respondent No. 3, as the proposal came to be decided only

on the very day the bailable warrant was issued against

her.
     Komal Kamble                                                         Page|2
                                          952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8446 OF 2026




6]                  Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 shall pay costs

of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the

Chairman, Library Committee, Advocates' Association of

Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within two

weeks from today.


7]                  Accordingly, the Civil Application as well as

the main Contempt Petition stand disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
          JUDGE                              JUDGE




     Komal Kamble                                                  Page|3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.