Ku. Shobha Sadashiv Mendhe v. Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur Through Its President, Eknath Pise

16mca 576.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (MCA) NO. 576/2022 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1461/2021 (D) KU. SHOBHA SADASHIV MENDHE ..VS..

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NAGPUR AND ORS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court'

s or Judge'

s Order Coram, appearances, Court'

s Orders or directions and Registrar'

s order__________________________________________________________ Mr. Sk. Sibghatullah Jagirdar, Advocate for the applicant Smt. H.N. Jaipurkar, AGP for the non-applicant nos. 1 and 3 CORAM : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

DATED : 21/09/2022 This is an application for review.

2.

The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the contention raised in paragraph no. 7 of the application forms part of the reasons. According to him, the management had not opposed applications for condonation of delay before the School Tribunal and even before this Court.

3.

In my opinion, the parameters of review have already been crystalized by the Apex Court in the cases of Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR 1995 SC 455] and Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 78]. The Apex Court had taken view that "error apparent on the face of record" is such an error which strikes the judicial mind just looking at records and SMGate

16mca 576.2022.odt does not require any long drawn process of reasoning. The subject of the order of which review is sought is rejection of an application to condone the delay of 1579 days. In the said order, it is held that reasons mentioned in the application that the petitioner had made a representation with the Management and, therefore, she could not file an appeal was held not to be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963. 4.

In that view of the matter, the error as alleged by the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the review as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments.

5.

In that view of the matter, the civil application is rejected.

JUDGE Digitally signed by SANDIP MAHADEV GATE Date:

2022.09.22 18:29:14 +0530 SANDIP MAHADEV GATE SMGate