1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 171/2009 in Writ Petition No. 908/2007 Satish Keshaorao Gawande vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya Mumbai and others.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B.Varale,JJ DATE OF RESERVING : 20.11.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2009 Heard Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4. 2. By this application the applicant who is the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 908/2007 seeks review of the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 908/2007. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director Vocational Education 2` dated 24.12.2004. This Court vide order dated 24.11.2008 dismissed the petition firstly on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of unexplained laches since the petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2004 was filed in February 2007. The petition was also dismissed on the ground that no monetary loss would be caused if the impugned order is not set aside since the controversy was regarding the regularisation of the services of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the petitioner had filed one more representation in August 2005 which was not produced on record in the petition but has been produced along with this present application. Therefore, according to Mr. Mohgaonkar there are no unexplained laches. According to the learned counsel the finding given by this Court that no monetary loss would be caused to the petitioner if the order is not set aside is incorrect inasmuch as 3` in case the petitioner is regularised he would be entitled to certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there are errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 24.11.2008. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, learned A.G.P. submitted that absolutely no case is made out by the applicant as there are no errors apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the order. 5. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, learned counsel left the matter to the court. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the record we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of review. Insofar as the finding given by this court that the petitioner was guilty of gross laches is concerned the same can not be said to be perverse. Admittedly, the petitioner did not 4` produce the representation filed in August, 2005 with the petition and, therefore, the finding given by this court that the petitioner was guilty of unexplained laches cannot be said to be disclosing error apparent on the face of record. By placing representation made in August, 2005 in review application, the petitioner can not be permitted to contend that there are no laches. The petitioner ought to have produced the said representation on record when he filed Writ Petition No. 908/2007. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record insofar as first finding is concerned. Since the petition has been rightly dismissed on the ground of unexplained laches we do not deem it necessary to deal with the second point urged by the applicant. 7. For the reasons aforesaid we do not find any merit in the application. Hence, the application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`