Mahatma Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Its Secretary, vs Shri. Shivaji Education Society, through Its Secretary, Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahatma Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Its Secretary, vs Shri. Shivaji Education Society, through Its Secretary, Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the misc. civil application for review stands rejected and the pending civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2013 with connected writ petitions warrants reconsideration in review on the ground that the pendency of criminal proceedings against the office bearers of non-applicant no.1-Society was not considered while declaring it entitled for grant-in-aid. +1 more

Court's answer

The ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against the office bearers of non-applicant no.1-Society was in fact canvassed by the Additional Government Pleader in the writ proceedings; therefore it is not that the said point/issue was left unconsidered by the Court in the judgment dated 20.09.2023.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Court delivering the judgment under review was sensitive to the fact of registration of offence against the office bearers of non-applicant no.1-Society, the said issue has already been dealt with; there is no reason to re-appreciate the evidence on that issue for the purpose of exercising review jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

In such an eventuality the remedy lies elsewhere and not in review before this Court; no case to exercise the review jurisdiction is made out, and the miscellaneous civil application is rejected.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (division bench of Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.; [2025:BHC-NAG:2973-DB], 24.03.2025) rejected Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 24442 of 2023 (for review) seeking reconsideration of the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2013 with connected writ petitions, by which Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati had been declared entitled for grant-in-aid. The applicants (original respondent nos. 4 and 5) urged that the pendency of criminal proceedings against the office bearers of the Society, and details said to be subsequently discovered (ground no.1), were not considered. The Court held that the Additional Government Pleader had in fact canvassed that very ground in the writ proceedings, so the point was not overlooked, and that the Court rendering the judgment under review was sensitive to the registration of offence against the office bearers; the issue therefore stood already dealt with and there was no occasion to re-appreciate evidence in review. Relying on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Court found no case to exercise review jurisdiction, observed that the remedy lay elsewhere, rejected the application and disposed of pending Civil Application (O) No. 127 of 2024 accordingly.

2025:BHC-NAG:2973-DB

42-CAO-127-2024 n MCA St -24442-24.odt 1

UIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP ) NO. 24442 OF 2023 (FOR REVIEW) in W. P. NO. 3829/13(D) AND CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 127 OF 2024

Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Patur, Dist. Akola through its Secretary and another. .. APPLICANTS vs. Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati, through its Secretary and others. .. NON-APPLICANTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. A. P. Raghute, Advocate for applicants. Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for non-applicant nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 24^th MARCH, 2025

P. C.

Heard Mr. Raghute, learned counsel appearing for the applicantsoriginal respondent nos. 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.3829 of 2013. According to him, the judgment pronounced on 20.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2013 with connected writ petitions, warrants re-consideration in view of the fact that the pending criminal proceedings against the office bearers of the non-applicant no.1-Society, i.e. petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.3829 of 2013, were not considered while declaring the said nonapplicant entitled for grant-in-aid.

So as to substantiate the said contention Mr. Raghute has invited our attention to the ground no.1 in the application for review.

If we consider the said contention in the light of the observations and findings recorded in the judgment under review, which was pronounced on 20.09.2023, what can be considered is, the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in the aforesaid writ petition has, in fact, canvased the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against the office bearers of the non-applicant no.1-Society, i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3829 of 2013, and as such, it is not that the said point/issue of pendency of the criminal proceedings against the office bearers was not considered by the Court in the judgment dated 20.09.2023.

42-CAO-127-2024 n MCA St -24442-24.odt 2

It is the contention of Mr. Raghute that the details which are narrated in ground no.1 of the review application were never brought to the notice of the Court while dealing with the writ petition and that it is subsequently discovered, which fact has prompted the applicants to move the present application for review of the judgment dated 20.09.2023.

At the outset, we are sensitive of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others reported in [(2013) 8 SCC 320] wherein parameters which shall be taken into account for the purpose of exercising the review jurisdiction are considered. Once, this Court while delivering the judgment under review, pronounced on 20.09.2023, was sensitive to the fact of registration of offence against the office bearers of the nonapplicant no.1-Society (petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2013), the said issue has already been dealt with by the Court. As such, we see no reason to re-appreciate the evidence on the said issue for the purpose of exercising the review jurisdiction.

In such an eventuality, in our opinion, the remedy lies elsewhere and not of review before this Court. No case to exercise the review jurisdiction is made out. The misc. civil application stands rejected.

Pending civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Andurkar.

Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/03/2025 17:34:56