1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.87 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5076 OF 2005 Dr. Anand Gopal Babar ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. S.G. Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr. M.A. Patil for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Date : 17th January, 2008. P.C. (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.): 1. The Review Petition arises out of an order passed by the Division Bench on 21st March, 2006. The Petitioner, claiming to be the president of a body known as Vikas Education Society had instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to challenge the approvals granted by the Education Officer (Secondary) of the Zilla Parishad, Solapur to the appointment of Respondent Nos.5 to 11 as assistant teachers. The Petition was dismissed on 21st March, 2006 on the ground that (i) the Petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had availed of the alternate 2 remedy of a civil suit in which by an order dated 30th April, 2004 the Trial Judge had rejected an application for interim relief; (ii) There was an unexplained delay in the institution of the proceedings in that, in the Petition which was instituted in 2005 approvals granted in the year 1997-98 were sought to be impugned; (iii) Disputes were going on between the Petitioner and the Third and the Fourth Respondents before the Charity Commissioner, which were pending and until the Petitioner succeeded in establishing his case before the Charity Commissioner of an entitlement to run the trust, the Petitioner would have no locus prima facie to institute the proceedings. 2. In the Review Petition it has been averred that there was no suppression from the Court of the fact that the Petitioner had chosen an alternate remedy of instituting a civil suit and a disclosure to that effect was made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. Besides, while refusing interim reliefs in Regular Civil Suit 31 of 2003, the Trial Judge had not taken a conclusive decision on the merits of the rival contentions. Finally, it was submitted that there is ample material on the record at the present stage to support the case of the Petitioner to be the president of the trust in 3 question. 3. We have heard Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents. Now it is true that in paragraph 8 of the Petition, the Petitioner has referred to the institution of Regular Civil Suit 31 of 2003 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur. The contention of the Petitioner was that the suit had become infructuous since no declaration has been sought and the Petitioner was withdrawing the suit. There was a passing reference to the fact that interim relief had been refused. The fact, however, remains that the Petitioner had not specifically annexed the order of the Trial Court declining interim relief nor was there an incorporation in the Petition of the reasons on which interim relief was refused. The disclosure which is made in the averments contained in the Petition is therefore not a full and candid statement of the relevant facts pertaining to the institution of the earlier proceedings. But, be that as it may, it is evident from the order of the Division Bench that the institution of the earlier suit and the refusal of interim relief was only one of the circumstances which weighed with the Court in declining to entertain the Petition. Apart from this, the Division 4 Bench observed that there was an unexplained delay in challenging the approvals which were granted in the year 1997-98 in a petition which was instituted in 2005. The writ petition, it may be noted was filed on 12th July, 2005. The Division Bench also observed that disputes in regard to the management of the trust were pending before the Charity Commissioner and in the circumstances, until the claim of the Petitioner to represent the trust was duly established before the competent forum in accordance with law, the Petition could not be entertained. There is no error apparent on the record in the recording of these findings in the order passed by the Division Bench. We therefore do not find that any ground for review of the order passed by the Division Bench has been made out. The Review Petition shall stand dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.