Bombay High Court
SHUBHADA SUBHASH SHAH AND ORSversusPRASHANT GAURISHANAKAR RAJMANE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Section 85 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act does not create a criminal offence and may be enforced by the University and College Tribunal without recourse to a criminal court.
Summary
The petitioners, office bearers of Vidya Vikas Mandal, challenged an order of the University and College Tribunal that imposed a fine of Rs 1,00,000 on them under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, for non‑compliance with the Tribunal’s directions to reinstate a former employee. The petitioners argued that Section 85 is akin to a criminal provision and that only a Judicial Magistrate First Class could impose such a fine, contending it is pari‑materia with Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act. The respondent maintained that the Act is a special statute providing a swift remedial mechanism and that the Tribunal has inherent power to enforce its orders through fines. The Court examined the language of Section 85, the definition of “offence” under the Cr.P.C., and the legislative intent, concluding that the provision does not create a criminal offence and therefore does not require criminal court jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal to entertain applications under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act and to impose fines.
- Whether Section 85 of the Act is pari‑materia with Section 13 of the MEPS Act and thus falls within criminal jurisdiction.
- Whether the fine under Section 85 must be imposed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class under the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 26, 2(n), 4, 6
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act — s. 13
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 — s. 83, 85
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- University and College Tribunal
- Section 85
- fine
- criminal court
- pari materia
- administrative law
- penalty enforcement
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8657
1 wp 12020.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12020 OF 2025
1. Smt. Shubhada Subhash Shah,
Age : 80 Years, Occu. : Chairman,
Vidya Vikas Mandal, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur,
Having its office at
Shri Sant Damaji Mahavidhyalaya
Building, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur.
2. Babaso Bhimrao Patil,
Age : 83 Years, Occu. : Vice Chairman,
Vidya Vikas Mandal, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur,
Having its office at
Shri Sant Damaji Mahavidhyalaya
Building, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur.
3. Kisan Jagganath Gavali,
Age : 73 Years, Occu. : Secretary,
Vidya Vikas Mandal, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur,
Having its office at
Shri Sant Damaji Mahavidhyalaya
Building, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur.
4. Audumbar Jyoti Jadhav,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Service,
The Principal,
Shri Sant Damaji Mahavidhyalaya
Having its office at
Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur.
2 wp 12020.25
5. Shri Atul Shankar Ingale,
Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Service,
R/o Hajare Galli, Mangalwedha,
Dist. Solapur. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Prashanth Gaurishankar Rajmane,
Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Service,
R/o Mitra Nagar, Pandharpur Road,
Tal. Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur.
2. Shri Umesh Bhauroji Kakade,
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service,
The Regional Joint Director
of Higher Education,
Solapur Region, Solapur. .. Respondents
Shri Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, Advocate a/w Shri Akshay A.
Kulkarni and Shri Avesh Ghadge, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Shri Y. B. Lengare, Advocate through V.C. a/w Shri Ajay
Parsekar for the Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 29.08.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 08.09.2026
JUDGMENT :-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners are assailing order dated 30.09.2025 passed
below Exhibit 07 overruling the objection of maintainability of
Misc. Application No. 05 of 2025 preferred U/Sec. 85 of the
3 wp 12020.25
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for the sake of
brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “Act”).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
University and College Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
any application U/Sec. 85 of the Act for conviction and imposition
of fine for the contravention of orders passed by the Tribunal. It
is submitted that provisions of Sec. 85 of the Act are pari materia
to Sec. 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Condition of Service) Regulation Act (for the sake of brevity and
convenience hereinafter referred as to the “MEPS Act”) and the
application U/Sec. 85 of the Act would be maintainable before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is submitted that power to
convict and impose punishment or fine would be within the realm
of jurisdiction of the criminal court and those cannot be usurped
by the College Tribunal. For that purpose my attention is
adverted to Sections 4, 5 and 26 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter
referred as to the “Cr. P. C.”). It is submitted that as per
Schedule I Part II, only Judicial Magistrate First Class would be
having power to impose fine as contemplated by Sec. 85 of the
Act. It is submitted that the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal
has committed error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application
Exhibit 07.
4. Per contra, Mr. Lengare, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 would submit that there is persistent non
4 wp 12020.25
compliance by the petitioners, without there being any excuse. It
is vehemently submitted that the provisions of Sec. 85 of the Act
and Sec. 13 of the MEPS Act are not pari-materia and there is
stark difference in the powers and jurisdiction of the authority.
It is submitted that the Universities Act is special statute. It has
provided quick remedy for non compliance of the orders passed by
the Tribunal. It is submitted that recourse to criminal court is
not contemplated for awarding penalty prescribed U/Sec. 85 of
the Act. The College Tribunal has inherent powers to see and
supervise implementation of its orders.
5. The petitioners are the office bearers of Vidya Vikas
Mandal Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur. The respondent No. 1 is an
employee, who was working since 03.05.1999 as a junior clerk.
He was terminated on 12.08.2015 by the management, which
was the cause of action for him to prefer Appeal No. 02 of 2018
before the University and College Tribunal, Pune. After hearing
both sides, appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 12.09.2024
directing the management to reinstate him to the original post
within two (02) months and to extend benefit of continuity of
service with backwages along with allowances as per the rules.
Additionally cost of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to him. The
judgment was assailed by the management by preferring Writ
Petition No. 773 of 2025. It was dismissed on 05.03.2025.
6. The respondent No. 1 persuaded the management to
comply the judgment passed by the Tribunal. He preferred Misc.
5 wp 12020.25
Civil Application No. 01 of 2024 U/Sec. 85 of the Act. It was
allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2025 directing the
petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in aggregate for the
contravention of the directions issued by the Tribunal and
reiterating to comply within one month. The respondent No. 1
was reinstated on 22.04.2025. The remaining part of the
directions of the Tribunal remained to be complied with. Hence
on the second occasion Misc. Application No. 05 of 2025 was
preferred U/Sec. 85 of the Act against the petitioners. They
appeared before the Tribunal and raised objection to the
maintainability by filing application Exhibit 07. It was rejected
by the impugned order.
7. The College Tribunal is empowered to grant relief U/Sec.
83 of the Act. It is further laid down U/Sec. 83(iv) of the Act that
directions issued by the College Tribunal should be complied
with by the management within a period specified in the
direction. In case of non compliance the remedy is provided by
Sec. 85 of the Act, which reads as follows :
The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016
1. ….
2. ….
85. (1) If the university or management, as the case may
be, fails, without any reasonable cause, to comply with any
direction issued by the Tribunal under section 83 within the
period specified in the direction, or within such further period
6 wp 12020.25
as may be allowed by the Tribunal, the university or
management, as the case may be, shall on conviction, be
punished-
(a) for the first contravention, with fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees: Provided that, in the
absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary
to be recorded in the judgment of the Tribunal, the fine
shall not be less than ten thousand rupees;
(b) for the second and subsequent
contraventions, with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees for each such contravention: Provided that, in
the absence of special and adequate reasons to the
contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the
Tribunal, the fine shall not be less than five thousand
rupees: Provided further that, when the direction
issued by the Tribunal is not complied with, within the
period stipulated in the direction or within such further
period as allowed by the Tribunal, and when the
contravention is a continuing one, the convicted person
shall be punished with a further fine of rupees five
hundred per day during which such contravention
continues after conviction.
(2) (a) Where the university or, as the case may
be, management committing the contravention under
this section is a society, every person who at the time
such contravention has been committed, was in charge
of and was responsible to the society, for the conduct of
the affairs of the society, as well as the society, shall be
deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly: Provided that, nothing contained in this
sub-section shall render any person liable to the
punishment, if he proves that the contravention was
committed without his knowledge or that he had
7 wp 12020.25
exercised all the diligence to prevent commission of
such contravention.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (a), where the contravention has been
committed by a society and it is proved that the
contravention has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of the Management Council of the university or
any president, chairperson, secretary, member,
principal or manager or other officer or servant of the
society, such Management Council, president,
chairperson, secretary, member, principal or manager
or other officer or servant concerned, shall be deemed
to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, society
means a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or a public trust registered
under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, or any other
body corporate, and includes an association or body of
persons, by whatever name called, under whose
management one or more colleges or institutions are
conducted and admitted to the privileges of the
university.
8. A careful reading of Sec. 85 of the Act shows that non
compliance of the directions issued by the College Tribunal would
result in punishment and imposition of fine. For the first
contravention the maximum fine would be Rs. 1,00,000/- and for
subsequent contraventions it would extend upto Rs. 5,00,000/- for
each contravention. The word offence has not been used in Sec.
85 of the Act.
8 wp 12020.25
09. The word offence has been defined in Sec. 2(n) of the Cr. P.
C., which is as follows :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1. ….
2. (a) ….
(b) ….
(n) "offence" means any act or omission made punishable
by any law for the time being in force and includes any
act in respect of which a complaint may be made under
section 20 of the Cattle trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871);
10. Section 4 of the Cr. P. C. provides trial of the offences,
which is as follows :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1. ….
2. ….
4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other
laws
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt
with according to the provisions hereinafter contained
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated,
inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being
in force regulating the manner or place of investigating,
inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
9 wp 12020.25
11. The Criminal Courts are classified by Sec. 6 of the Cr. P. C.
The powers of the Courts are provided by Sec. 26 of the Cr. P. C.,
which is as follows :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1. ….
2. ….
26. Courts by which offences are triable
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,—
(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
may be tried by—
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in
the First Schedule to be triable;
(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is
mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and
when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by—
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in
the First Schedule to be triable
12. The conjoint reading of above provisions of the Cr. P. C.
would show that if the act is an offence, then the person
committing it has to be tried by the Courts having jurisdiction as
per Sec. 26 of the Code subject to the enactment. In this context
Part II of the Schedule I of the Cr. P. C. would confer jurisdiction
10 wp 12020.25
upon the Judicial Magistrate First Class, if offence is punishable
with fine only. No statutory framework is provided for treating
the contravention under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act
as an offence and laying down the forum, the powers thereof or
procedure.
13. Both the learned counsels have made rival submissions
comparing Section 85 of the Act with Section 13 of the MEPS
Act. The powers of the School Tribunal are provided by Sec. 11 of
the MEPS Act. The power is bestowed upon the Tribunal U/Sec.
13 for failure to comply it’s directions and specifically section is
coached with the word first offence, second and subsequent
offences. It is relevant to reproduce Section 13 of the MEPS Act.
The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of
Service) Regulation Act
1. …
2. …
13. Penalty to Management for failure to comply with Tribunal's
directions.
(1) If the Management fails, without any reasonable excuse,
to comply with any direction issued by the Tribunal
[under section 11 or any order issued by the Director
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of
section 4A within the period specified in such direction,
or as the case may be, under sub-section (5) of section 4A
or within such further period as may be allowed by the
Tribunal or Director as the case may be.] [This portion
was substituted for the portion beginning with the words
'under section' and ending with the words 'Tribunal' by
11 wp 12020.25
Maharashtra 30 of 1987, Section 9.] the Management
shall, on conviction, be punished,-
(a) for the first offence, [with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to fifteen days or with fine
which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with
both] [These words were substituted for the words
'with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees' by Maharashtra 17 of 1995, Section 2(1)
(a).]:
Provided that, in the absence of special and adequate
reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgement
of the Court, the fine shall not be less than [ten thousand
rupees] [These words were substituted for the words 'one
hundred rupees' by Maharashtra 17 of 1995, Section 2(1)
(b).]; and
(b) for the second and subsequent offences, [with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
fifteen days or with fine which may extend to
seventy five thousand rupees, or with both] [These
words were substituted for the words 'with fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees' by
Maharashtra 17 of 1995, Section 2(2)(a).]:
Provided that, in the absence of special and adequate reasons to
the contrary to be mentioned in the judgement of the Court, the
fine shall not be less than [twenty thousand rupees.] [These
words were substituted for the words 'five hundred rupees' by
Maharashtra 17 of 1995,
(2)(a) Where the Management committing an offence
under this section is a society, every person, who,
at the time the offence was committed, was in
charge of and was responsible to, the society, for
12 wp 12020.25
the conduct of the affairs of the society as well as
the society, shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly:
Provided that, nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any person liable to the punishment, if he proves
that the offence was committed without his knowledge or
that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of the offence.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a),
where the offence has been committed by a society
and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any
president, chairman, secretary, member, Head or
manager or other officer or servant of the society,
such president, chairman, secretary, member, Head
or manager or other officer or servant concerned
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section "society"
means a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, or a public trust registered under
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, or any other body
corporate, and includes an association or body of persons,
by whatever name called, under whose management one
or more private schools are conducted.
14. The legislative intent is to treat the contravention of the
orders of the School Tribunal as an offence unlike that of
contravention of the directions of the College Tribunal.
13 wp 12020.25
Interestingly, for the first offence imprisonment extendable to 15
days and/or fine is prescribed. Further rigorous punishment is
provided for second and subsequent offences. The word offence
needs to be understood in contradistinction to contraventions. I
am of the considered view that Sec. 13 of the MEPS Act is not
pari-materia with Sec. 85 of the Act. The judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter needs to be
perceived in the backdrop of above analysis.
15. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
in the matter of Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and another Vs. S. A.
Ghode, Principal, Navbharat Vidya Mandir reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J.
261, which inter alia refers to ratio laid down in the above
judgment. Following are the relevant observations :
16. Besides the aforesaid, the remedy available to the
employee concerned under Section 13 can always be resorted to.
By the Amendment Act, Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1995,
penalty has been sumptuously, increased. Multi-pronged action
under the provisions of the said Act would act as a great
deterrence for such managements who intend to disobey the
directions issued by the School Tribunal. Once the employee
concerned has made representation to the concerned authority
of the State Government, it would be open to the employee to
institute complaint before the appropriate Court against the
office bearers of the management within the meaning of Section
13 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance
on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana v. Commissioner of Patiala
Division, Patiala to contend that since no formula has been
prescribed by Section 13 of the Act, namely, as to the forum
before which the proposed complaint has to be filed, such a
14 wp 12020.25
complaint would be maintained only in a criminal Court of
competent jurisdiction. He has also referred to Sub-section (2)
of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to which
forum would be competent to try the said offence under Section
13. Reliance was also placed on Clause (n) of Section 2 of the
Code, which defines the offences, which would include the
offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. In the
circumstances, it would be appropriate to conclude that, the
employee, besides approaching the officer of the State
Government, who is overall in charge of the affairs of the School
and obliged to ensure that the directions of the School Tribunal
are complied with, shall lodge a formal complaint before the
Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction to initiate action under
Section 13 of the Act against the office bearers of the
management of the school. When the State machinery is
involved, in all these matters, it is only then the possibility of
management of the school avoiding to act upon the direction
with utmost despatch can be obviated. Such a multi-pronged
action alone would result into effective measure for enforcing
the directions given by the School Tribunal. Only then the object
and purpose with which the said enactment was legislated can
be achieved. There is no doubt that the enactment is a welfare
legislation for the protection of employees in Private Schools.
17. It is made clear that the aforesaid procedure shall not only
apply to the directions which would be passed by the School
Tribunal in future but would also apply with full force to the
cases where the Tribunal has already issued such directions in
the 'past and the same have remained uncomplied with so far. In
all such cases it would be open to the affected/aggrieved
employees to approach the concerned officer of the State
Government for getting directions enforced by taking recourse
to the above measures, including filing of prosecution under
Section 13 of the Act.
16. In the above matter there was non compliance of orders
passed by the School Tribunal. The contravention is treated to
15 wp 12020.25
be an offence and hence Sec. 4 of the Cr. P. C. was relied upon. In
the case at hand, we cannot fall back to any of the provisions of
the Cr. P. C. or B. N. S. S. There is distinction between the
phraseology used by the legislature in Sec. 13 of the MEPS Act
and Sec. 85 of the Act. This judgment would not enure to the
benefit of the petitioners.
17. My attention is also adverted to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shaikh Badarunnisa
Begum Shaikh Abbas Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2004(2) Mh.L.J. 407 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners
to buttress that view taken by the Single Bench in the matter of
Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and another Vs. S. A. Ghode, Principal,
Navbharat Vidya Mandir (supra) has been approved by the Division
Bench and the said view is binding upon this Court. That was
also case of disobedience of the judgment passed by the School
Tribunal. The disobedience of order passed by the School
Tribunal has different complexion than that of the University
and College Tribunal. The judgment cannot be made applicable
to the present case.
18. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Mohd.
Hashim Masood Vs. State reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Del 798.
But the facts are distinguishable from the case at hand. The
facts of that case pertain to commission of offence and that was a
criminal matter before the High Court. The ratio laid down
16 wp 12020.25
would be of no avail to the petitioners.
19. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Single Bench
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ramesh Ramlal
and another Vs. State of M. P. reported in 2003 (1) MPLJ 475. It was
rendered in criminal revision application by the Coordinate
Bench which was pertaining to the offence under the M. P. Excise
Act. The facts are distinguishable. That pertains to clearly
criminal jurisdiction and would not assist this Court.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana Vs. Commissioner of Patiala Division reported in
(1995) 1 SCC 304. My attention is adverted to para No. 6, which is
as follows :
6. It appears that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
consistently taken the view that the imposition of fine under
Section 116 (and the corresponding provision in the preceding
enactments) can be only by a criminal court vide Nitco
Roadways (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Ludhiana disposed of
on 4-9-1985 and Gian Chand v. State. We are of the opinion that
the said view is correct in law. The normal rule of legislative
drafting is that wherever it says that a particular Act shall be
"punishable with fine", it contemplates its imposition by a
criminal court only. Be that as it may, both Sections 116 and
388 speak of "punishable with fine". Section 388 provides not
only for fine but also for imprisonment. It cannot be suggested
that the punishment of imprisonment contemplated by Section
388 can be awarded by the officers of the Corporation. If so, the
punishment of fine can also not be imposed by them. The same
logic applies to Section 116 as well. We, therefore, agree with
the High Court that punishment of fine provided by Section 116
17 wp 12020.25
can be imposed only by the criminal court and cannot be
imposed by the officers of the Corporation.
21. Considering the object sought to be achieved, I find that the
normal rule laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above
mentioned para No. 6 cannot be made applicable. Though words
punish and fine appear in Sec. 85 of the Act, it cannot be said
that only criminal court can impose the punishment or fine.
Hence the reliance placed on the judgment cited by the
petitioners is not helpful to uphold that application preferred by
the respondent No. 1 U/Sec. 85 of the Act is not maintainable.
22. It is necessary to examine the penalty provided U/Sec. 85 of
the Act and Sec. 13 of the MEPS Act. In Sec. 85 of the Act
rigorous penalty is provided for the first contravention ranging
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. For the second and
subsequent contravention it would be extendable to Rs. 5,00,000/-
for each contravention. There is no provision of imprisonment
U/Sec. 85 of the Act, but huge amount of fine is leviable. The
legislative intent is to provide quick and effective remedy to the
successful employee. The effective deterrence is also sought to be
achieved.
23. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners
are accepted, then the successful employee has to prosecute the
matter before the forum provided under the Cr. P. C. or B. N. S.
S. to secure conviction. The orders passed by the Court at the
first instance would be susceptible to the appeals or the revisions.
18 wp 12020.25
This rigmarole is not contemplated by the state legislature and,
therefore, the remedy against the contravention of the directions
of the University and College Tribunal cannot lie before the
criminal Court.
24. I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the
impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of any substance.
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
25. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for
the petitioners seeks protection against the order dated
30.09.2025 so as to get breathing period to the petitioners.
26. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1.
27. The petitioners have failed to comply the order passed by
the School Tribunal on multiple occasions. No stay was granted
to the order dated 30.09.2025, albeit there was understanding
between the parties not to proceed with the execution.
28. I do not find that there is any reason to stall the execution.
The request is rejected.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Sept. 26
Checking your session…