The Maharashtra State Board Of Technical Education v. Santosh Bhimrao More And ORS

(1) R. A. No. 89 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Review Application No. 89 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 1664 of 2008) The Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai, Through its Deputy Secretary, .. Applicant Regional Office, Osmanpura, Aurangabad, (Respondent no.6 in W.P.) District : Aurangabad.

versus Santosh s/o. Bhimrao More, Age : 23 years, Occupation : Education, .. Non-applicants R/o. Majalgaon, Taluka : Majalgaon, (Nos.2 to 6 - Original District : Beed, respondent nos.1 to 5 in & 5 others.

W.P.) .........................

Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. D.V. Tele, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant nos.2 and 3.

Mrs. R.R. Mane, Advocate, for non-applicant no.4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, for non-applicant no.5. ..........................

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 24TH JUNE 2015

(2) R. A. No. 89 of 2010 PER COURT :

1.

Heard Counsel for respective parties.

2.

This Review Application is based on assertion that the order under review is based on error apparent on record. 3.

We perused the order and found that the applicant's real grievance is that the Court committed error in appreciation of facts. It is also said, that some erroneous facts were considered and appreciated and, therefore, review is necessary.

4.

The submission of the applicant is in the nature of appeal and we are not inclined to consider it. Hence, the Review Application is rejected.

( A.M. BADAR ) ( A.V. NIRGUDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ................................

Puranik/ RA89.10