Balapur Minority Education And Social Welfare Society, Balapur Through Its Secretary Imran-Ul-Haque v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education And Anothe

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 196 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2014 (Balapur Minority Education and Social Welfare Society vs. Shri Nand Kumar and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : OCTOBER 28, 2015 Heard Adv. Sheikh for petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Adv. Bute for respondent no.2. Perused reply-affidavit filed by respondent no.1, order dated 8/1/2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2225/2014 and subsequent communication dated 2/2/2015 at Annexure R-II with reply.

It is not in dispute that the said communication wrongly carries the date 2/2/2014 and it has been corrected by corrigendum dated 21/9/2015 placed as Annexure R-III with very same

2/3 reply.

In order dated 8/1/2015 this Court has taken note of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others vs. Union of India and others (2014 (7) SCALE 306) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not applicable to minority educational Institutes. The impugned communication dated 2/2/2015 (Annexure R-II supra) mentions a reason that during scrutiny by State Level Committee, Urdu School imparting primary education is found functioning at the distance of 900 metres from village Shelad. This School is located at Kasarkhed and it is managed by Balapur Municipal Council.

It is, therefore, apparent that case of petitioner has been examined on merits and thereafter proposal has been rejected. Whether rejection is right or wrong is not an issue to be gone into in contempt jurisdiction. We do not see any deliberate act of contempt. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to take such other steps as

3/3 are open to it to assail that communication, we dispose of the contempt petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE khj