1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9778 OF 2009 Shri Amrit Chandrakant Birajdar ... Petitioner Vs. The Government of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondent Mr. A.B.Tajane, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP, for respondent No.1. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 1st December, 2009. P.C. 1. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief :- “b) The Respondent No.2 The secretary of M.P.S.C. Be directed to conduct the revaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner of subject 072 of the examination J.M.F.C. And C.J.J.D. (Main) Examination-2008 by appointing separate independent expert agency for the purpose of revaluation of the above paper.” 2. Admittedly, no provision has been made for revaluation. What the learned Counsel contends is that there must be rules made for revaluation. 3. Making of rules is an exercise in subordinate legislation. It is not open therefore to the petitioner or for this Court to direct rule-making authority, unless there will be a provision to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the 2 provisions of the Act or within the time frame if not framed . In fact, the Supreme Court in a similar matter has declined to grant such a relief. The basic principle in such matters is that it is for the rule-making authority or the legislature to make provision and it is not open to this Court to direct making of legislation including subordinate legislation. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth AIR 1984 SC 1543 to contend that it is open to provide for re-valuation. In the case of Paritosh (supra), this Court had taken a view that the provision for verification includes revaluation. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that verification does not include re-valuation. 5. It is not open to the Writ Court to direct the authority empowered to make rules to exercise their powers to make rules which they have not provided for or which they do not propose to do. In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)