1 rew pet 142.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 142 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 674 OF 2010 Bhairavnath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.G.P. for Respondents/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, & S. V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL ORDER : . This review petition seeks review of our earlier order dated 26.02.2010. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents/State and state authorities. 2 rew pet 142.10 3. The review petitioner has taken as many as seven grounds in the review petition. The ground Nos. III and V reads thus : "III. The Hon'ble court may kindly be considered that, Photographs annexed to the proposal were not of photographs of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha observed by the respondent. Said photographs are at Exhibit "C" above by the petitioner first time before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be considered both the photographs whereas it would be clear that, photographs annexed by the Petitioner along with the proposal were not of photographs of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha. V. The Hon'ble court ought to have considered that, while challenging ground No. 3 of rejection of the proposal whereas the Zilla Parishad observed that, Photographs are of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha. The contention was raised in regard to ground No. 3 stating that, no any photographs were submitted that, was in relation to the Photographs of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha. However it was not properly appreciated and therefore the Hon'ble Court taken it as otherwise. The Hon'ble Court ought to have considered the statements of the Petitioner in para No. 10 stating that, "Petitioner trust has not submitted any photograph of the building 3 rew pet 142.10 structure was in consonance of Photographs of building of Zilla Parishad, Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha as stated in the impugned order dated 22.08.2008". The Hon'ble court may kindly be considered total para No. 10 of the petition whereas it relates to the 3 grounds raised by the respondents for rejection of the proposal and therefore said statement was in regard of Photographs of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari, Tq. Parandha." 4. It is not in dispute that one of the ground to reject the proposal of the petitioner for grant of permission for opening new junior college at Sonari, Tq. Parandha, Dist. Osmanabad was that, the photographs which were submitted along with the proposal by the petitioner, are the photographs of the building of the Zilla Parishad as stated by the Education Officer in his communication dated 22nd August, 2008 to the President/Secretary of the Bhairavnath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal i. e. petitioner herein. 5. When the writ petition was heard by this Court on 26.02.2010, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No. 4/Education Officer (Higher Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, made submission that one of the ground on which the proposal of the petitioner is rejected is that, the 4 rew pet 142.10 petitioner along with proposal has submitted the photographs of the building of the Zilla Parishad School. The learned A.G.P. made available the original file maintained by the office of the Education Officer for perusal of this Court. Relying on the statement of the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and after perusal of the file produced before this Court, this Court observed thus, "The argument of the petitioner that he had not relied on such photographs is, however, belied by the documents in the original record of the Education Officer, which was produced before us. For, the original record contains the photographs relied upon by the petitioner as if it is the building constructed by the petitioner to house the Junior College therein. However, the photographs pertain to Zilla Parishad Building, which is more than obvious." 6. In this review petition the review petitioner has taken a specific ground No. V and relying on the said ground, the counsel for the review petitioner submitted that, the statement of the petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition ought to have been read in its entirety. The avernments in para 10 are in reply to the three grounds on which proposal of the petitioner was rejected. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the avernments in para 10 are in reply to three grounds assigned by the Education 5 rew pet 142.10 Officer for rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for opening new junior college. In the said paragraph, in reply to ground No. 3, the petitioner has replied that the photographs of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari are not annexed by the petitioner with the proposal. The learned counsel further submitted that, in the light of ground No. 5 in the review petition, this Court may appreciate the contention of the petitioner that, the photographs which were annexed with the proposal were not of building of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Sonari as stated by the Education Officer. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that, this Court may recall the order under review. 7. In pursuance to the notice issued in the review petition, the Education Officer has filed affidavit in reply. We have carefully perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer. The Education Officer in para 6 of the affidavit in reply has stated that, "though it is true that, the said photographs are not of Zilla Parishad, however, fact remains that, the photographs annexed along with the proposal are not of the petitioner institution at village Sonari." Therefore, the stand taken by the Education Officer when the writ petition was heard by this Court that, the photographs 6 rew pet 142.10 which were submitted along with proposal by the petitioner for opening new college are of the Zilla Parishad building has been now changed and on affidavit the Education Officer has stated that the said photographs are not of Zilla Parishad building. Secondly, we are convinced by the arguments of the counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the avernments in para 10 of the writ petition are in reply to the grounds assigned by the Education Officer for rejecting the proposal of the petitioner. As evident from the perusal of ground No. V taken in this review petition, the petitioner by way of clarification to para 10 of the writ petition has submitted that, the petitioner by way of avernments in para 10 wanted to convey that, the photographs submitted with the proposal submitted by the petitioner was not of the building of Zilla Parishad as stated by the Education Officer. However, the petitioner has never stated that, the photographs are not submitted at all along with the proposal. 8. Therefore, in the light of ground Nos. III and V taken in the review petition, para 6 of the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad and in view of the clarification given by the counsel for the review petitioner about para 10 of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that, the order dated 26.02.2010 is required to be recalled. 7 rew pet 142.10 09. Hence, review petition is allowed. We recall our order dated 26.02.2010 under review. The Writ Petition 674/2010 is restored to its original position. The review petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of review petition, civil application if any stands disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11