1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.275 OF 2011. Indira Shikshan Sanstha,Kalimati,Tah. Amgaon,District Gondia, thr. Its Secretary Liladhar Giripunje, r/o Kalimati. .Vrs. State of Maharashtra,thr. Its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for petitioner. -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 06 th July, 2011 Learned Government Pleader has produced copy of order dated 13.05.2011 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court to point out that State Government has been asked to consider application of petitioner before Hon’ble Apex Court, if the same were recommended by University or if there was a direction by High Court to consider their proposal, prior to application of the institution who applied for allotment of college in the year 2011-2012. He 2 further points out that petitioner before this Court is not party before Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence it cannot seek benefit thereof. Mr. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for petitioner contends that the challenge which was before this Court was carried on to Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Apex Court has by said order dated 13.05.2011 permitted reconsideration. The petitioner before this Court is raising very same challenge and hence asking petitioner to approach Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter will be nothing but unnecessary duplication. He contends that last part of direction of Hon’ble Apex Court squarely covers his case. We find that, earlier before this Court Writ Petition No.5634 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner before Hon’ble Apex Court and in that petition this Court has passed the order on 13.12.2010. This order was then questioned before Hon’ble Apex Court by filing MCA No 142 of 2011. Hon’ble Apex Court has after condoning the delay in the matter and while issuing the notice passed the orders on 3 13.05.2011 which are interim orders. It is, therefore, obvious that present petitioner is not before Hon’ble Apex Court and effort of petitioner to show that later part of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court “where there is a specific direction to consider their proposals” covers the case of petitioner, is therefore misconceived. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//