Dismissed
Mah. University of Health Sciences, Mhasrool Nashik Thr. Its Registrar v. Suchit Ashok Barapatre and Another
Bombay HCMCA/47/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
21.3MCA47.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 47 0F 2013 IN W.P. NO. 6061/12. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences .vs. Suchit Ashok Barapatre & another
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. A.L. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. Neeta Jog, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent no. 2.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 21, 2013.
1] Review is sought of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a party.
2] Mr. A.L. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the applicant, submits that in an earlier round of litigation in the petition challenging the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner had also prayed for protection which prayer was specifically rejected by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 5.4.2011 in Writ Petition No. 1017/10. He submits that the S.L.P. challenging the same order has also been dismissed. It is further submitted that the
2
21.3MCA47.13
said order was sought to be reviewed. The said Review Application is also rejected by order dated 15.2.2012. It is further submitted that the petitioners had also filed an interlocutory application before the Apex Court for the very same relief which was not granted by the Apex Court. The learned Counsel further submits that in view of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2009 Bom. 122 .
3] The scope of review jurisdiction is very limited. Unless the Court finds that there is error apparent on the face of record, it would not be proper to entertain the review jurisdiction.
4] It is not as if that the aforesaid judgment and orders were not referred to in the memo of petition by the writ petitioner. The Writ Petitioner had specifically stated about the filing of the petition, dismissal of the S.L.P. and dismissal of the review application. The present applicant was heard before the
21.3MCA47.13
3
order of which review is sought was passed.
5] The judgment under review was basically passed on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2012 SC
3016) .
6] It appears that when the earlier petition of the petitioner was decided and the review application of the writ petitioner was rejected, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke (supra) was not yet delivered.
7] In that view of the matter, we do not find any case for review. It is rejected.
Judge
Judge
J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present review application is maintainable in light of a subsequent Apex Court judgment.
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 in view of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs. State of Maharashtra.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs State of MaharashtraReferred¶13
Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 Bom 122 · Who else cites this
Kavita Solunke vs State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶19
Kavita Solunke vs State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2012 SC 3016 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
Suchit Ashok Barapatre
B.R. Gavai
Prasanna B. Varale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court