HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 19413 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 19413 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 19413 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6408 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 6408 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 6408 OF 2006 Thane Bar Association,Thane ... Applicant Versus Bar Council of Marhasathra and Ors.. . Respondents Mr. A.A. Garge for the Applicant. Mr. Dushyant Purekar for R.No. 1. Mrs. Sushma Bhende, A.P.P. for R. No. 2. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JUNE 19, 2008 DATED: JUNE 19, 2008 DATED: JUNE 19, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The applications for condonation of delay and review petition are being heard and disposed of by this common order. . The applicant herein was not party to the Petition. They have however, sought the review of the order of this court dated 3.5.2007. Considering that, delay condoned. . The learned counsel in the review petition has raised two contentions which are as under: (f) It ought to have been considered that in the Judgment of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd., reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715, the S.C. has clearly observed that the High Court ordinarily should not on its own consider the validity of a rule or regulation and such determination can be done by an aggrieved party by independently challenging the provision by way of Writ Petition. The challenge in the Writ Petition was not concerning, the rules and the court of its own considered the validity of the provisions of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1916. (Not as in the petition but redrafted). (g) It ought to have been considered that while passing impugned order this Hon’ble Court have not exercise its power under Article 226 by following established rules, practice and procedure consistent with the Rules of Natural Justice and framing relevant issues as per the Judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Satyanarayan Kapoor (Dead) by L.R.’s and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 630." (Reproduced as in the writ petition). . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without going into the issue as to whether the applicants who were not parties to the Petition should be heard, in the review petition, we have considered the contentions as urged. . When the petition was being heard, we were confronted with certain issues which required to be considered on the touch stone of Article 348 of the Constitution of India by a Constitutional Court. Once Article 348 stands, all laws including the rules made must meet the touch stone of the said article. The issue therefore, is not whether the court could suo motu raise the issue of validity of rule but the issue involved the language of the court. It is in that context that the matter was heard and disposed off. . In our opinion, considering the clear mandate of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and for the reasons recorded in the judgment in W.P. No. 6408 of 2006, we are of the opinion, that no case is made out for review. Hence, application for review is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)