Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 494 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Pradnya Prasad Joshi

2025-03-03

M.M.SATHAYE, RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

body2025
JUDGMENT : P.C. 1. The Interim Applications and the Review Petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra, are not on board. On mentioning, taken on production board. So also, the Interim Applications filed by the Original Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1439 of 2024, 1440 of 2024, 1441 of 2024, 1442 of 2024, 1443 of 2024, 1444 of 2024 and 1445 of 2024 are not on board. On mentioning, taken on board. 2. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate, the learned Advocates and the learned Addl.GP, for the respective sides on the Interim Applications seeking condonation of delay. 3. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s Mst.Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , and as the delay is neither deliberate, nor inordinate, all these Interim Applications are allowed. The delay is condoned. 4. By the consent of the parties, all the Review Petitions are taken up for hearing. 5. The only reason for filing of these Review Petitions is that, a wrong authority is directed to re-decide the issue afresh. The impugned orders in the original Writ Petitions were passed by the Divisional Chairman, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune. This Court, by a common order dated 21 st October, 2024, set aside the impugned orders for the reasons set out therein and remitted the matters for issuance of show cause notices and a rehearing with reasonable opportunity to the parties. 6. Inadvertently, when the Divisional Chairman had passed the orders, we were informed that the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur will have to hear these matters. Because of this mistake, the State has preferred these Review Petitions. 7. Mr.Pakale, the learned Senior Advocate, submits that because the approvals were granted by the Deputy Director of Education, the matters would lie before the same Authority for rehearing. 8. We are informed by the learned Addl.GP that the said Authority would be the Divisional Chairman, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board, Pune. 9. It would be a wasteful exercise if we do not carry out the correction as is pointed out in the Review Petitions. 8. We are informed by the learned Addl.GP that the said Authority would be the Divisional Chairman, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board, Pune. 9. It would be a wasteful exercise if we do not carry out the correction as is pointed out in the Review Petitions. Whether the said Authority has the jurisdiction to cancel the approvals of these Original Petitioners, is a matter to be adjudicated upon by the said Authority. 10. In view of the above, the Review Petitions are allowed. 11. Paragraph 6 of the order under review, be corrected by replacing the ‘Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur’, with ‘the Divisional Chairman, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Division Board, Pune’. Similar correction would occur in paragraph 7 of the order under review. The same shall be corrected. 12. All contentions, including the issue of whether the said Authority has the jurisdiction, are kept open. 13. Pending Interim Applications filed by the Original Petitioners would not survive and disposed off in light of paragraph 8 of our order dated 21 st October, 2024. 14. The ninety days to be calculated from the date of uploading of this order on the official website of the High Court, Bombay.