1 ra31.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 633 OF 2010 The Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Pune, Latur Divisional Board, Latur. ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for review-applicant. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. N.S. Kadarale, Advocate holding for Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.U. Chandole, Advocate holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent NO.7. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,& K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2011 PER COURT : This Review Application is filed by the review-applicant, seeking review of our earlier 2 ra31.11 order dated 03-02-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.633 of 2010. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the review- applicant submits that, when Writ Petition NO.633 of 2010 was heard by this Court, the review applicant i.e. Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Pune, Latur Divisional Board, Latur, was not heard. He further submits that, even in the decision i.e. Vinod Bapurao Singewar vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.4264 of 2009 decided on 15-01-2010, which is relied upon by this Court, in the said Writ Petition also the review-applicant was not party. Learned Counsel for review-applicant also invited our attention to other grounds taken in the review-application and submitted that the same may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submits that, order 3 ra31.11 under review is a consequence of order passed in Writ Petition No. 4264 of 2009 and by order under review, it is left open to the review-applicant to consider the application of the original writ petitioner, so the authorities are free to take its decision as per its regulation and for that reason, it is not necessary to restore the Writ Petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that, as per direction of the Education Officer, correction has been carried out in the school record. 5. Upon hearing Counsel for the review- applicant, learned Counsel appearing for original petitioner, learned A.G.P. for the respondent State and learned Counsel for respondent No.3, we are of the opinion that since the review- applicant, though was party respondent in Writ Petition No.633 of 2010 was not heard while passing order under review. In our opinion, 4 ra31.11 this ground alone is sufficient to recall our order dated 03-02-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.633 of 2010. Accordingly, we recall our order dated 03-02-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.633 of 2010, and restore the Writ Petition to its original position. 6. Needless to mention that, it will be open for the parties to agitate all grounds available to them, before the Court after Writ Petition is restored to its original position. 7. Review Application is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. Writ Petition No.633 of 2010 is restored to its original position. [K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/Mar11/ra31.11