Supriya Babasaheb Kamble And ORS. v. Dr. Vitthalrao Subrao Shivankar And ANR.
Gitalaxmi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2022 Supriya Babasaheb Kamble & Ors
...Petitioners
Versus
Dr Vitthalrao Subrao Shivankar & Anr
...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2022 Manisha Sudam Upadhye
...Petitioner
Versus
Dr Vitthalrao Subrao Shivankar, Secretary of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha & Anr
...Respondents
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2022 Bhagyashree Prakash Parte @ Bhagyashree Vaibhav Nalawade
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary, School Education Department
...Respondent
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2022 Himmatrao Hauserao Nangare-Patil
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary, School Education Department
...Respondent
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 248 OF 2022 Sachin Bhausaheb More
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department
...Respondent
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 475 OF 2021 Shakur Husenbhai Maniyar
...Petitioner
Versus
Vitthalrao Subrao Shivankar, Secretary of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha
...Respondent
WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 247 OF 2022 Rajaram Shivaji Thorat
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya
...Respondent
Mr Dilip Bodke, for the Petitioners in CP 235/2022, CP 698/2022 & CP 475/2021.
Mr NV Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, with Vinayak Kumbhar i/b AN Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioners in CP 245/2022, CP 246/2022, CP 248/2022 & CP 247/2022.
Mr Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, with Milind Deshmukh, Shailesh Chavan & Prasanna S, for the RespondentManagement. Mr NC Walimbe, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM
G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED:
PC:- 1.
There are very seriously disputed questions even of an interpretation of the Consent Terms in question. These Consent Terms were made an order of the Court on 13th September 2021. We are asked to infer in the Contempt Petitions that the Consent Terms impliedly included certain conditions or impliedly excluded certain conditions.
2.
It is not possible to examine such questions in contempt proceedings. It is open to the Petitioners to file a substantive proceeding if they are so advised. That substantive proceeding will be decided on merits and the disposal of these Contempt Petitions will not affect that consideration. We make it clear that we have not decided the merits of the Petitioners' contentions in the present contempt proceedings. We only hold that the Contempt Petitions themselves are not maintainable.
3.
The Contempt Petitions are dismissed.
4.
No costs.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2023.07.27 15:04:15 +0530