1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4696/2010 Mr.Vivek Govind Hinge Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.Sugandh B.Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr.Kiran Gandhi for– Respondent No. 4 Ms.M.P.Thakur AGP for State CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010. P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is seeking direction to respondent -4 to give inspection of answer script of CET examination conducted by respondent-4 for the academic sessions 2009/2010 and is also seeking further direction that the respondent should rectify the mistakes and irregularities alleged to have been 2 committed by them and declare the fresh result of the said examination . 2. At the outset we want to express that the petitioner did not place before us any rule,regulation or provision of law which gives such right to the petitioner to seek above referred directions from this Court . In absence of specific provision in this regard the petitioner does not have enforcible right and therefore, the prayer made in the petition according to us cannot be granted. 3. Learned AGP on the basis of the instructions received has made a statement that the name of the petitioner is on the waiting list which will be in existence up to 31/5/2011. It is further submitted that as and when the claim of the petitioner matures and if there is a vacancy, same would be considered accordingly. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in position to demonstrate that the procedure adopted by the respondent while evaluating the answer script of the petitioner is patently wrong . In that event this Court is not powerless to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to substantiate his contentions reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Secy.W.B.Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and others (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases ,242 . The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 10 clearly show that the Courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out in this regard for the reasons mentioned in the said paragraph. It is no doubt true that so far the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned it is unfettered and can be exercised in an appropriate and proper case. However, we are of the view 4 that the present case is not of that type and hence the decision of the Apex Court does not help the petitioner. 5. For the reasons stated here-in-above the Writ Petition is disposed of . (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)