1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.405 OF 2010 IN WP NO.4530 OF 2003 IN W.P.NO.3888 OF 2000 Punyashlok Ahiladevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Badnapur, District Jalna - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** CONTEMPT PETITION NO.407 OF 2010 IN WP.NO.4530/2003 IN WP NO.4114/2000. Janjagruti Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha,Dondaicha, Tq. Shindkheda District Dhule - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** 2 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.408 OF 2010 IN WP.NO.4530/2003 IN WP NO.3851/2000. Bharatmata Janseva Pratishthan Koradi Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** CONTEMPT PETITION NO.406 OF 2010 IN WP.NO.4530/2003 IN WP NO.3417/2000. Megh Malhar Vikas Sanstha Aurangabad. - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** CONTEMPT PETITION NO.419 OF 2010 IN WP.NO.4530/2003 IN WP NO.3870/2000. Yamunai @ Yamunabai Sevabhavi Sanstha, Dhule. - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS 3 Mr.KD Bade-Patil, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP & Mr.SV Kurundkar, Addl.GP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 19th November,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for State. 2) The grievance of the petitioners is the State authorities are not adhering uniform policy relating to grant of permission to open Aashram Schools and undeserving cases are favourably considered while the cases of present petitioners are kept pending deliberately. 3) Mr.Ghatge, learned AGP filed affidavit in reply, paragraph 10 of the reply is as under : “10. I most respectfully say and submit that the deponent/authorities has taken decision not to sanction new primary and secondary Aashram School for VJNT and for children of sugarcane workers, vide Government Order dated 31.8.2005 due to paucity of funds.” 4 4) The learned AGP has also clarified that the cases of the petitioners are for opening new Aashram schools and the cases to which the petitioners passingly referred revolve to the existing Aashram schools for certain standards of imparting education and in such cases, there was extension of classes and it could not be branded as permitting new Aashram schools. 5) The order which is referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, breached of, is dated November 29, 2003. Several representations apparently are moved by the petitioners, however, not considered. 6) The contempt of any order necessarily warrants initiation of proceedings within a year in terms of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Present exercise in the contempt petition is after virtually seven years of the order dated November 29, 2003. 7) Passing of identical orders or making statement by the State Authorities in other cases will not automatically bind them to adhere to such permission in favour of present petitioners. It is for the petitioners to independently agitate their grievances. 5 8) I do not see any contempt on the part of the State Authorities. Contempt Petitions lack merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/