Vitthal Narsing Landage v. Smt Sunanda Thube Wakhare Deputy Direction Of Education Pune Region Pune
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2025.07.07 11:30:09 +0530 HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF (SR. No.913) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 396 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15900 OF 2023 Vitthal Narsing Landage
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunanda Thube (Wakhare), Deputy Director Of Education, Pune Region, Pune and Anr.
...Respondents
AND (SR. No.914) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 397 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15901 OF 2023 Sanjay Janardhan Bhosale
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunanda Thube (Wakhare), Deputy Director Of Education, Pune Region, Pune and Anr.
...Respondents
AND (SR. No.915) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15902 OF 2023 Urmila Shankar Bugad
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunanda Thube (Wakhare), Deputy Director Of Education, Pune Region, Pune and Anr.
...Respondents
.. 2 ..
AND (SR. No.916) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15903 OF 2023 Raghunath Gorakh Dhobale
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunanda Thube (Wakhare), Deputy Director Of Education, Pune Region, Pune and Anr.
...Respondents
Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar through V.C. a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent/State in CP/396/2025, CP/399/2025 & CP/400/2025.
Mr S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent/State in CP/397/2025. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd JULY, 2025 P.C.:
1.
The learned AGP submits on instructions from the Accused/Contemnor Mr. Sachin Jagtap, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur that though he had the knowledge of the Writ order dated 22.12.2023, after a close scrutiny of the entire inward register and documents received by his office, the proposals with regard to these four Petitioners, are not found in the inward register.
.. 3 ..
2.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the proposals have been tendered and the Petitioners have acknowledgments of delivery of such proposals. 3.
The learned AGP submits on instructions from Mr. Jagtap who is present in the Court hall that without contesting these matters, he proposes that the Management of these Petitioners may submit the copies of the proposals within a period of one week and he would decide the said proposals by following due procedure laid down in law, within sixty days thereafter. So also, he tenders an apology if this court has carried an impression that the proposals are kept pending deliberately. With humility, he submits that his office could not trace out the proposals of these four persons. The Education Officer has tendered his affidavits dated 03.07.2025, in all these four matters. 4.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Management would tender the copies of the proposals within seven days to the concerned Education Officer and these Petitions be disposed off. He further submits that if the proposals
.. 4 ..
are not decided within sixty days, the Petitioners may have to approach this Court by again filing contempt petitions. 5.
In view of the above, we have recorded the statements of the parties. Since we are yet to come to a conclusion about prima facie disobedience and since we have yet not issued notice to the Respondents, these Petitions are disposed off by noting that the parties would abide by the statements as recorded in the aforesaid paragraphs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)