(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2004 Pimpari Prashala Pimpari ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr. Vishwas Deokar, counsel for Petitioner Mr. A.H. Palekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 5TH MAY, 2005 DATED: 5TH MAY, 2005 DATED: 5TH MAY, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. M.A. Gutte, Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of School Education and Sports. It has been pointed out that pursuant to the G.R. dated 11.10.2000, the school run by the petitioner was eligible for 20% grants for the fifth year i.e. academic year 2001-2002 but on the assessment of its performance, the school secured only 67 marks as against the requirements of 90 out of total 100 marks. It has been further pointed out that the requirement of 90 out of 100 marks has been reduced to 75 out of 100 marks by G.R. dated 17.2.2004 (-2-) 2. In such circumstances, there is no case made out to take cognizance for contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. Hence, the contempt petition is rejected summarily. *****