Snehalata Kuber Chougule v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary And ORS
{1} wp10903-25.doc drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10903 OF 2025 Snehalata Kuber Chougule PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS .......
Mr. C. G. Patil a/w Mr. P. P. Magadum a/w Ms. S. R. Chavan a/w Mr. Gajraj A. Mali i/b Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar, Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent - State .......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. J.] DATE : 11 th FEBRUARY, 2026 ORDER (PER AJIT B.KADETHANKAR, J.):
1.
This Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 28th September, 2015 passed by the Administrative Officer, Primary Education Board, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.
2.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that, before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. He would submit that, had an opportunity of being heard been given by the concerned authorities to the school management, they would have got an
{2} wp10903-25.doc opportunity to answer the queries and remove the deficiencies. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate requests to allow the Petition and permit the Petitioner and Respondents No. 4 and 5 to appear before the concerned authority by remanding the matter to Respondent No.3.
3.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by holding that the impugned order dated 28th September, 2015 passed by Administrative Officer, Primary Education Board, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation be treated as show cause notice to the Petitioner and Respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondents No. 4 and 5 shall remove the deficiencies in the proposal and shall resubmit the proposal to Respondent No.3, who in turn shall decide the proposal afresh on its own merits, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned, within a period of 8 weeks from today.
4.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp10903-25.doc