1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.O. NO.662/2011 IN REVIEW PETITION N O. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4508/2009 NITESH PURSHOTTAM NANDESHWAR ..VS.. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ANOTHER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.B. Moon, adv for applicant Smt. U.A.Patil, adv for respondent no.1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.. DATE : JULY 22, 2011. Heard. There is delay of 38 days in filing the present review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, this court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained. Hence the delay is condoned. The civil application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE M.C.A. STAMP NO.3507/2011. The learned counsel for the review petitioner in support of the review petition made following submissions: 1] The regulation applied in case of the review petitioner could not have been applied retrospectively inasmuch as the regulation came into force in the year 2005 while the admission taken by the petitioner was in the year 1999. 2] Section 72 of the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery 2 Sciences University Act, 1998 protects the present review petitioner inasmuch as it provides that the review petitioner shall be permitted to complete his course and that there is non-obstante clause in the section 72. 3] The review petitioner should be given a chance to complete his course and that is why the judgment in review needs to be set aside. Per contra Mrs. Patil the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the review petition and argued that all these grounds were considered when the original writ petition was decided and no ground is made out. Having considered the submissions we find that the first ground relating to the retrospectivity is wholly misplaced since the same was dealt with by this court in paragraph 6 of the judgment. The attempt of the review petitioner to read alleged retrospectivity of the provision relatably to his initial date of admission is again misplaced. The court has found that on the date when the regulations were brought into force, the same were applied and there is no question of looking at the date of initial admission. The second contention about the section 72 of the Act is also misconceived. Section 72 is in the nature of a transitory provision for those students who were studying in particular colleges. Even then the said provision nowhere states that students like the review petitioner have to be given chances to appear ad-infinitum The last submission that the review 3 petitioner should be allowed to complete his course is ridiculous since the review petitioner could not complete even the third year in 10 years and that is why this court in paragraph 11 observed that such a student should prosecute some other avenue of education. In the result we do not find any merit in the present review petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP