Bombay High Court
SANDEEP KALAPPA ARAGE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the rejection of the proposal without a prior opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice and therefore quashed that part of the order.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 5 December 2025 in which the Education Officer rejected their proposal on the ground of several deficiencies. The petitioners contended that they were not afforded an opportunity to address or cure those deficiencies before the rejection. The High Court examined whether the principles of natural justice required a chance to be heard prior to the adverse decision. Finding that no such opportunity was given, the Court quashed the portion of the order that rejected the approval and directed that the proposal be retained on file. The Court further ordered that the management be allowed two weeks to remedy the deficiencies and that the Education Officer reconsider the proposal within four weeks, with subsequent issuance of the Shalarth ID and release of grant‑in‑aid as specified. The petition was consequently allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer was required to provide the petitioners an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies before rejecting the proposal.
Subjects
- administrative law
- natural justice
- due process
- education
- grant-in-aid
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:7887-DB
57-WP-1927-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2026
Sandeep Kalappa Arage And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Santosh Jadhav, “B” Panel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : AUGUST 21, 2026
P. C. :
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without giving an
opportunity to the Petitioner and the management to comply with the
deficiencies, the Education Officer has rejected the proposal by citing
several deficiencies.
2. We have perused the impugned order dated 5 th December, 2025.
The Education Officer has listed several deficiencies and has rejected
the proposal without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner and the
management to comply with the deficiencies.
3. As no opportunity to cure the deficiencies was given to the
management, we are inclined to quash the impugned order dated 5 th
Arya Chavan 1 of 2
57-WP-1927-2026.doc
December, 2025 to the extent that it rejects the approval. The proposal
to be retained on the file of the Education Officer and an opportunity
be given to the management to comply with the deficiencies. The
management to comply with the deficiencies within a period of two
weeks from today. The Education Officer to thereafter consider the
proposal afresh within a period of four weeks. In event, approval is
granted the Petitioner’s name to be included in the Shalarth Pranali and
Shalarth ID be issued within a period of three weeks thereafter, and
arrears of grant-in-aid to be released within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
4. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Arya Chavan 2 of 2
Checking your session…