Bombay High Court

PANKAJ JIBHAU PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS. SECRETARY TRIBAL DEV. DEPT. AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

Respondents must consider fresh proposals in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 01‑02‑2000 and decide within the stipulated time.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of parents, filed a writ petition alleging that the State Education Department officials (respondents Nos.3 and 4) refused to accept proposals submitted by the school management and headmaster on 17‑January‑2024. The petitioners contended that the proposals must be considered in accordance with a Government Resolution dated 1‑February‑2000. The Court examined whether the respondents were bound by the earlier resolution to evaluate and approve the proposals. It held that the respondents had erred in rejecting the proposals without following the procedural guidelines of the 2000 resolution. Consequently, the Court directed the higher officials (respondents Nos.5 and 6) to submit fresh proposals to respondents Nos.3 and 4 within two weeks, and mandated that the latter decide on them within eight weeks, taking the 2000 resolution into account. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

The respondents' refusal to accept the management’s proposals violated the procedural requirements of the Government Resolution dated 01‑02‑2000.

Subjects

writ petition
government resolution
administrative law
proposal approval
public authority

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:30484-DB


                                                  1                   106-WP-7739-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 7739 OF 2026

                                PANKAJ JIBHAU PATIL AND OTHERS
                                            VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS. SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Pralhad D. Bachate, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
                                               ...

                                        CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                         DATE : 22th JULY, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           Grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.3

              and   4    are   not   accepting   the   proposals   submitted   by    the

              Management and Headmaster dated 17/01/2024.

              2.           According to the petitioners, said proposals are required

              to be decided in terms of Government Resolution dated 01/02/2000.

              3.           The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent

              Nos.5 and 6 to submit fresh proposals to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for

              approval of sta: within a period of two weeks from today. After such

              proposals are submitted, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall decide the

              same by taking into consideration the Government Resolution dated

              01/02/2000, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.



              (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                 (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




              SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…