Delhi: Civil Contempt petition filed against Ex CJ Bombay High Court Shri Pradeep Nandrajog for violating Hon'ble Supreme Court constitution bench order in Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.
In Civil PIL 159/2016 Sapan Shrivastava VS HRD Ministry the petitioner challenged the validity of ICSE/ISC Board . In Earlier hearing court directed State to file reply but inspite of final warning the State did not filed replied. HRD in RTI reply said that it does not recognise CISCE operated ICSE/ISC board.
In final order the court of Shri Pradeep Nandrajog and Smt Bharti Dangre passed the order and admitted the submission of CISCE that ICSE /ISC board is recognised from all the states and UT. On 5th Sept 2019 Court put the cost of Rs 5 Lac on petitioner and also banned petitioner to file any petition at Bombay High Court. He also called petitioner act of collection of fund from crowd funding as “extortion”. He requested respondent CISCE to do FIR against petitioner against Definition set by Apex court in EXTORTION.
After the CJ order the Registrar and other court staff stoped the filing of IA and other petitions at Bombay High Court. CJ also gave personal instruction to staff that no case has to be accepted from petitioner Sapan Shrivastava.
Later petitioner come to know that Shri Pradeep Nandrajog has done schooling from ICSE board school. To protect his own interest he passed order in favour of ICSE board.Mr BR Gavai and Collabawala Judge also passed from ICSE board but they did not over reacted.
As the judges violated the Apex court order of access to justice and stopped petitioner to exhaust the remedies available at Bombay High Court the contempt petition is filed at Supreme court.
ICSE Board filed the affidavit in PIL 159/2016 that CISCE is recognized by all the states and UT but in PIL 29/2020(OS) Gerry Arthoon filed affidavit that Maharashtra have no control over CISCE operation. In the same CJ court the CISCE Gerry Arthoon filed contradictory affidavits.
Education board is established by act of parliament / State or by Executive order. In 2014 CISCE filed affidavit at Allahabad HC that no act or executive order is passed in favour of CISCE . As per RTI reply HRD , Maharahtra , Delhi , MP (HC Order) denied ICSE/ISC Recognisation . This is an act of perjury and contempt of court by CISCE.
In Contempt following are the respondents
1. HON’BLE SHRI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ,(Ex CJ BHC)
Room No.51, Bombay High Court , Churchgate, Mumbai 400032
2.HON’BLE SMT BHARTI DANGRE , Judge
Room No.66A , Bombay High Court, Churchgate , Mumbai 400032.
3. Ld. VR KACHARE
Registrar Judl2, 3rd Floor , Annex Building Bombay High Court,
Churchgate, Mumbai 400020
4. MANSI MAYEKAR
Assistant Registrar ,Gnd Floor , Civil Appellate Side ,
Annex Building Bombay High Court,Churchgate, Mumbai
5. KALPANA CHAUDHARY
Asst Registrar, Civil Criminal Side, Annex Building Bombay High
Court,Churchgate, Mumbai 400020.
Filing Associate,GND Floor OS Filing Counter,
Annex Building Bombay High Court,Churchgate, Mumbai 400020
7. REGISTRAR GENERAL
Bombay High Court,Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 ...........
Allahabad High Court
A. Pavitra vs Union Of India And 2 Ors. on 15 December, 2014
PavitraVs. Union of India reported in 2015(3) ALJ 697
Para 3 “Learned counsel for the Board, at the very outset, raised an objection that the Board is not a 'public authority', in view of Section 2(h) of the Act, and consequently, it is not required to provide the information sought by the petitioners, under the Act. Substantiating the objection, Sri Nagar submits that the Board is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is not receiving any financial grant or aid from the Central or the State Government. He further submits that Board is not a creation of any Act of Legislature, and therefore, necessary ingredients to hold the Board as a 'public authority', under Section 2(h) of the Act, are lacking, and consequently, the prayer made in the writ petition is not liable to be granted.”