Ramchandra Maruti Gonte vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4504 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:13828-DB



            ppn                                  1                1.rpw-6.22.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                REVIEW PETITION NO.6 OF 2022
                                              IN
                               WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.3568 OF 2021

            Ramchandra Maruti Gonte                           .. Petitioner
                   Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   .. Respondents
                         ---
            Mr.S.A. Pilankar i/by Dr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner.
            Mrs.M.S.Bane, AGP for the State.
            Mr.Dilip Bodke for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
                         ---
                                    CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                                 ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

                                    DATE      : 2nd May 2023
            P.C.:-
           .                By this Review Petition, the Review Petitioner seeks recall

of the order dated 2nd December 2021 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.12198 of 2019 along with Writ Petition (St.) No.3568 of

2021 filed by the Review Petitioner.

2. Mr.Pilankar, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner

invited our attention to the reasons recorded by this Court in paragraph

35 of the said order dated 2nd December 2021 passed by this Court and

also invited our attention to prayer clause (A) of the Review Petition

filed by his client and vehemently urged that it is erroneously recorded

that his client has not challenged the impugned transfer in any Competent

ppn 2 1.rpw-6.22.doc

Court of law but approached the Education Officer (Secondary) even

though the Petitioner has filed the said Writ Petition and thus there is an

error apparent on the face of the record and more particularly in view of

the said order observing that the Review Petitioner did not challenge the

impugned order in any Competent Court of law.

3. The next submission of the learned counsel is based on

certain grounds which were not raised in the Writ Petition filed by his

client that are now raised in the Review Petition and more particularly

ground (F).

4. Mr.Bodke, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4

vehemently opposed the Review Petition on the ground that the Review

Petitioner has not challenged the order of transfer before the appropriate

authority i.e. Grievance Redressal Committee which is in place. He

submitted that the grounds which were not raised in the Writ Petition

cannot be allowed to raised at this stage, in the Review Petition.

5. In so far as the first ground urged by the Review Petitioner

before this Court that though the Petitioner had challenged the order in

the Writ Petition filed by the Review Petitioner, the same is rejected on

ppn 3 1.rpw-6.22.doc

the ground that the Petitioner did not challenge the impugned transfer in

any Competent Court of law but approached the Education Officer

(Secondary) for seeking intervention in the matter is concerned, learned

counsel for the Review Petitioner did not dispute that such order of

transfer could have been challenged before the Grievance Redressal

Committee which was constituted pursuant to the judgment delivered by

this Court. We cannot therefore recall the order dated 2 nd December 2021

passed by this Court on this ground.

6. In so far as the second ground raised by the Review

Petitioner is concerned, it is a common ground that the ground now raised

and more particularly ground (F) in the Review Petition was not raised in

the Writ Petition. We cannot entertain the said ground (F) raised for the

first time in the Review Petition.

7. No error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out by

the Review Petitioner nor any case for review is made out under any other

ground of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Review

Petition is thoroughly misconceived. Review Petition is accordingly

dismissed. No order as to costs.

           ABHAY AHUJA, J.                       R.D. DHANUKA, J.