1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 64 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7124 OF 2008 The Bal Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr . .. Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 65 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7124 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Khedoot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kalkundri & Ors . .. Respondents. Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar for the petitioners.. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for respondent no. 4. Mr. P.M. Ajunwadkar for respondent no. 5. 2 Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for the State. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M. ) P.C. : These two review petitions are filed by the State of Maharashtra through its Education Department as well as by the original respondent nos. 4 and 5. The contention of the State Government is that the permission was granted for co­education school and, therefore, this Court should review its decision on this aspect. In case of respondent nos. 4 and 5 it is contended that one of the observations in the inspection note clearly indicates that the school was not being considered only for girls and, therefore, the review petitioners respondents cannot be prevented from admitting boys and run the institution as a co­education institution. 2. We find that the grounds taken by the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra as well as the original respondent nos. 4 and 5 do not require to be considered for the simple reason that this Court has dealt with the matter in the judgment under review. 3 3. We are surprised to note the change in the attitude of the Education Department though in their affidavit in reply to the petition they have not taken such a stand and subsequently they have rather tried to offer an explanation which did not find favour with the Court. 4. In so far as the original respondent nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they cannot take advantage of certain observations made in the inspection report for the simple reason that they never sought permisson for merely opening a school and that their application was very specific that as there is no school for girls in the village they should be granted permission for running a school only for girls. Therefore, both the review petitions are dismissed with costs. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)