Bombay High Court
MAHAMTA GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR NASHIKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DIVISION OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court set aside the order dismissing the appeals and restored them for hearing, allowing condonation of the delay.
Summary
The Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of its appeals under Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 on the ground that they were filed beyond the prescribed 15‑day period. The State argued that the Act provides no power to condone such delay and that any hearing of the appeals should be before the appropriate Minister, not Respondent 6. The High Court set aside the order dismissing the appeals, held that the delay could be condoned, and restored the appeals for hearing by either the Minister of Water Resources or the Minister of Revenue within twelve weeks. The court expressly declined to opine on the merits of the underlying dispute and cautioned that its order should not be treated as precedent on delay condonation. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether delay in filing an appeal under Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 can be condoned.
- Whether the appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed after the statutory period.
- Whether the appeals should be heard by the Minister of Water Resources/Minister of Revenue rather than Respondent 6.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 — s. 3(4)
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appellate authority
- educational institutions act
- ministerial jurisdiction
- writ petition
- Section 3(4)
- Maharashtra
Judgment
908. WP-7737-2026.doc
Mahatma Gandhi vs. State & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI PRAKASH
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date:
WRIT PETITION NO. 7737 OF 2026
2026.06.25
19:55:44
+0530
Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir Nashik .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w Rohan Kadam a/w Rucha
Vaidya, S. B. Pawar, Nikita Jacob, Kinjal Khandelwal i/b K P Law Associates LLP
for Petitioner.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General a/w Neha Bhide, G.P. a/w O.A. Chandurkar,
Addl.G.P. a/w Priyanka Chavan, AGP for State.
Mr. Harihar Bhave a/w Karishma Choudhari i/b Devendra Avadh for Respondent
no. 6.
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE : 25th JUNE 2026
P.C.:
1. The present Writ Petition impugns the orders dated 1 st June 2026 rejecting
the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner under Section 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 (the said
Act) which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
2. By the impugned orders dated 1st June 2026, the Appellate Authority
dismissed the Appeals solely on the ground that they had been filed beyond
Page 1 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 25th June 2026
908. WP-7737-2026.doc
Mahatma Gandhi vs. State & Ors.
the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 3(4) of the said Act from the
date of receipt of the Director’s orders.
3. Dr. Sathe, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent no.
1, submits that under the said Act, there is no power to condone the delay in
filing of the Appeals. He further submits that in the event this Court was to
condone the delay and allow the Appeals to be entertained by the Appellate
Authority, the Appeals will be heard and appropriate decision therein will
be rendered by either Mr. Girish Mahajan, Minister of Water Resources or
Mr. Chandrashekhar Bawankule, Minister of Revenue and not by
Respondent no. 6. This is in view of the objection taken by the Petitioner as
to Respondent no. 6 hearing the Appeals, as it is the very same Respondent
no. 6 at whose instance some of the complaints have been filed and which
has resulted in the aforementioned Appeals which position is vehemently
denied by Mr. Bhave, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no. 6.
4. We accordingly consider it appropriate that, without providing any reasons
for condoning the delay and without going into the merits of the dispute,
and considering the aforementioned statement made by the learned
Advocate General to condone the delay in filing of the Appeals.
5. The impugned orders dated 1st June 2026 are accordingly set aside.
6. The Appeals are restored to file and shall be heard by the Appellate
Page 2 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 25th June 2026
908. WP-7737-2026.doc
Mahatma Gandhi vs. State & Ors.
Authority who shall be either the Minister of Water Resources namely, Mr.
Girish Mahajan or the Minister of Revenue namely, Mr. Chandrashekhar
Bawankule on merits. The Appeals shall be disposed of by the Hon’ble
Minister within a period of 12 weeks from today.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the matter and the rights and contentions of all the parties in that regard
are kept open. It is further directed that this order shall not be treated as a
precedent on the issue of condonation of delay.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )
Shubham Gadhavepatil
Page 3 of 3
-------------------------------------
Order dated 25th June 2026
Checking your session…