1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION O.NO.1601/2010. WITH MCAST NO.21072 OF 2010. IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.____________ of 201`0. IN WRIT PETITION NO.2701 OF 2008. BHAGYODYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. K. R. Lambat Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 20th JANUARY 2011. 1. We wanted learned Advocate for the applicants to address the Court even on merits in order that the matter is not unnecessarily dragged further if it is seen that the review does not have any merit. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Lambat for the applicant has urged that this Court has initially included the colleges whose recognition was set 2 aside, which was covered by meeting by NCTE being meeting nos.101 to 109. Thereafter, on the request of the Writ Petitioner error as to number of meeting was corrected by this Court substituting in place of meeting '101', the figure '104'. 3. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Lambat, correction should have been '105' and not '104'. Since in case of the applicant whose recognition was granted in the meeting No.104, it was not made clear in the order of recognition of applicant's College that the said recognition was subject to order passed by this Court in the writ petition No.2701 of 2008 dated 29-8-2008, which was done in case of those who were granted recognition in the meeting No.105 to 109. 4. This Court had while correcting verified number of colleges covered in the meeting No.104 to 109, which totalled to 291. It is not shown that the applicant's college does not fall in that bracket. 5. In view of this we are of the considered view that it would be unnecessarily vexing the parties before this Court if we entertain the 3 application for condonation of delay. Therefore, it shall be totally unnecessary to get into a formality of issuing the notice on the application for condonation of delay. 6. From what is discussed in para No.3 & 4, we are satisfied that the applicants have failed to make out a case for review. 7. We, therefore, dismiss the Civil Application O. No.1601 of 2010, and Misc. Civil Application St.No.21072 of 2010 follows result. Judge Judge |muley|