1 ra142.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7823 OF 2010 [ Pachora Taluka Sahakari Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. vs. Pradip s/o Bhagatsing Patil & Ors. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the review applicants. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for Resp. No.1. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this Review Application, the review applicants seek review of the order dated 25-04-2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7823 of 2011. 2 ra142.11 2. Though as many as eight grounds are taken in the review application, Counsel appearing for the review applicants submit that, the review applicants were not properly served by the notice issued in this writ petition. He submits that, the employee who has accepted the notice was not authorized and unless, such employee is authorized, it is not a valid service of notice. Second ground is that, all the documents are with the Assistant Charity Commissioner in one inquiry and therefore, it is not possible for the review applicants to produce those documents before the School Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the review applicants also invited my attention to other grounds taken in the review application and submitted that, it is not possible for the review applicants to produce original copies of relevant appointment orders as sought by the original petitioner. Therefore, learned 3 ra142.11 Counsel for the applicants would submit that, this matter requires consideration. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 i.e. original petitioner submits that, the ground that review applicants were not served is not taken in the review application and therefore, may not be taken into consideration. He further submits that, the notice was served on one employee namely Mr. U.R. Namra and to that effect, Bailiff has submitted the report. Therefore, that point may not be considered and accepted. So far producing copies of the relevant appointment orders is concerned, Counsel for the original petitioner submits that, even if photocopies of the relevant appointment orders are produced on record, it will suffice the purpose and he is not insisting for original appointment orders to be produced on record. 4 ra142.11 4. Since the first ground which is agitated by the Counsel for review applicants that the review applicants were not properly served is not taken in the review application, therefore, I feel it appropriate not to consider the said ground. 5. So far second ground is concerned, Counsel for the original petitioner fairly submits that, even photocopies of the relevant appointment orders would suffice the purpose. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no case is made out to entertain this review application. Same stands rejected. Civil Application if any also stands disposed of in view of rejection of review application. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11