1 26CAN27.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAN) 27 OF 2026 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2662 OF 2024(D) (Gajanan s/o Bisanji Vaidya Vs. Ulhas Narad, Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur and anr) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.V. Thakare, Advocate for petitioner/applicant. Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent /State. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATED : 27-07-2026. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not press the present application. Accordingly, the application is disposed of as not pressed. 3. The learned counsel is at liberty to prefer an appropriate application. 4. Stand over at 2.30 p.m. today. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2025 Later on, at 2.30 p.m. today. 2. Heard. Belkhede 2 26CAN27.2026.doc 3. At the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner leave is granted to add present Deputy Director of Education and present Education Officer as party respondents. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inviting our attention to the order dated 10.7.2024, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2662/2024 submits that till this date, same has not been complied with. 5. Today, Mr. Anil Dahiphale, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur is present in person. On being inquired, the Education Officer, through learned AGP has stated that an action is still not taken for want of papers. 6. We are surprised to hear the aforesaid defence as the order in paragraph 4 categorically states that these authorities Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education are the custodian of record in relation to the petitioner. It was expected from the authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance to the order. Having not done so, we are of the prima facie view that the respondent No. 2 has committed the contempt of the order passed by this Court. Hence, issue notice to Mr. Anil Dahiphale, the Education Officer and Smt. Madhuri Sawarkar, Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, in Form No.1 Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side rules, 1960, made returnable within two weeks. 7. In the meanwhile, the contemnor can purge the contempt by complying with the order. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J) Belkhede