1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 646 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 1823 of 2006 (decided) (Chhagan Namdeorao Athawale ..Vs.. Education Officer (Sec.), Amravati, & 3 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008. The applicant/original petitioner has come up with a limited request that the cost of Rs.5,000/- for each respondent, total Rs.15,000/-, ordered by the School Tribunal should have been waived or set aside by this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition No.1823 of 2006 on 28/11/2006. He states that unfortunately the said point was not argued expressly before this Court and its attention was not invited to it. According to him for ventilation of injustice done to him, the applicant approached the School Tribunal as per legal advise and ultimately it was found that it was on wrong footing. He argues that in such circumstances, the costs ought not to have been imposed by the School Tribunal. Learned Assistant Government Pleader 2 appearing for respondent No.1 states that the School Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction and the matter was unnecessarily before it and in view of this, costs have been inflicted. She, therefore, states that no case is made out warranting interference in review jurisdiction. Nobody has appeared for other respondents, though served. There was some delay in moving this review application and delay was condoned on 22/6/2007 at that stage also other respondents have chosen not to appear. Thereafter, they have been served with fresh notices twice in the present matter with express indication that the review application will be finally disposed of on merits. Still they have chosen not to appear. Advocate Shri Mirza for applicant states that infact the respondents are not interested in costs. In the circumstances, it is clear that issue of costs was not raised before this Court when the writ petition was decided. In any case, in view of non-appearance of respondents in whose favour the costs are ordered, it is also clear that the respondents have no interest in the present matter. Further the applicant has definitely approached the School Tribunal and has acted under the legal advise. In the circumstances, he cannot be blamed and penalized for approaching 3 the wrong forum. I, therefore, found that the cost of Rs.5000/- for each respondent is clearly unsustainable. The said order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The order dated 28/11/2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1823/2006 is reviewed only to that extent. Thus, the MCA (Review) stands allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE /Diwale/