1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2196 of 2010 Farah Choudhary ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Smt. Saroj K. Shinde for petitioner. Mr. Ulhas T. Naik, for respondents 2 & 3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 19, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of assurance given to this Court on 21st January, 2010 in the earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 10916/2009, the Petitioner was subjected to re-examination before the same set of Jury on the basis of same set of garments. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in our opinion is devoid of merits. In the first place, it is noticed that both the parties have acted upon the order passed by this Court on 21st January, 2010. The order passed by this Court was on the basis of statement made by the Respondent which was accepted by the Court. As per the said statement, the Head office gave another option of Re-Jury wherein the design collections (five garments) which were considered earlier 2 were to be re-considered by the internal as well external Jury. The statement as recorded also clarifies that no work done thereafter (after the external Jury will be given any weightage). 4. As aforesaid, both parties acted upon the said arrangement provided in order dated 21st January, 2010. Consequent thereto, the Respondent constituted re-examination Jury as per the provisions stipulated in the Academic Manual in Chapter 6.9. The relevant portion thereof reads thus:- “The re-examination Jury would consist of the following: One faculty of an other department of the same Centre. One faculty of another Centre. One industry member. CC of the department to coordinate as Observer.” There is no dispute that the constitution of re-examination Jury was in accord with the norms specified in the Academic Manual. The details thereof have been spelt out in Paragraph 14 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents 2 & 3, sworn by Subhash V. Patil dated 1st April, 2010. In addition, the communication issued under the signature of the Dean-A of the Institute dated 4th February, 2010 was produced before us which also reinforces the above finding. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made by the Respondents on affidavit, as also disclosing the communication issued under the signature of the Dean. 5. Since the Petitioner has already availed of the option in terms of order 3 dated 21st January, 2010, it is too late in the day for the Petitioner to make grievance that her same set of design collection ought not to have been considered for re-examination. As a matter of fact, if such grievance were to be entertained, it would result in ignoring the order dated 21st January, 2010, which has already been acted upon by both parties. That order has become final. 6. In our view, it is not open to the Petitioner to question the re- examination process undertaken by the Respondent on the basis of the said order by this fresh Writ Petition. As aforesaid, if that grievance were to be entertained, it would result in review of the order dated 21st January, 2010, which cannot be countenanced. 7. In the circumstances, we find no merits in this Petition. Hence, dismissed. 8. At this stage Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner be given liberty to file Review Petition against order dated 21st January, 2010. After the parties having fully acted upon the said order dated 21st January, 2010 without any demurer, we have our own doubts as to whether such Review Petition can be maintained. In the circumstances, this request made by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)