Hrishikesh Shripati Halvankar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

913 wp 6797-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.15 11:18:13 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 6797 OF 2021 Hrishikesh Shripati Halvankar .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

Mr. Utkarsh Desai for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. K. S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

DATE:

JULY 11, 2025 P. C.

1.

Though the impugned order dated 25th September, 2020 does not amount to the rejection of the proposal dated 29th June, 2020, the Petitioner contends that the proposal has been returned to the Management. 2.

The learned Advocate for the Management submits that the Management is under the impression that this amounts to a rejection. Laxmi 1/2

913 wp 6797-21.odt 3.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off. 4.

The deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order dated 25th September, 2020 shall be treated as a notice to the Management. The Management shall remove all the deficiencies and place relevant documents on record, as has been asked for by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, the said officer would follow the due procedure laid down in law and pass a reasoned order on the revised proposal, within a period of 45 days. 5.

It is needless to state that we have not expressed any view or opinion about the claim of the Petitioner and the said officer is at liberty to arrive at a decision, independently. In the event, the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to avail of the remedy permissible in law. If the proposal is accepted, the concerned Authorities would follow the due procedure for grant of Shalarth ID to the Petitioner. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] Laxmi 2/2