1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 5348 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9147 OF 2005 Nandu V. Kadam .. Petitioner Vs. Dilip Jagannath Sarode & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sameer Vaidya for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar AGP for respondent No.2. CORAM : MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. R. S. DALVI, JJ. DATE : 28th January, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner is respondent No.3 in the above petition. The petition has been disposed of by an order dated 06.05.2008. Respondent No.3 failed to appear or be represented. He contends that because the board of this Court did not show the appearance of his Advocate, he failed to remain present and respondent No.3 went unrepresented. 2. We have now heard the Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Vaidya. He contends that in the impugned order passed on 2 15.02.2008 the Court had considered the original documents being the examination papers of the petitioner but his examination paper was not seen by the Court. He has drawn our attention to orders passed in the writ petition dated 20th February, 2008 as well as 15th February, 2008 with regard to the examination papers called for by us for our perusal. The order dated 20.02.2008 shows that the examination papers which were brought in sealed packet were opened and inspected. The papers of the petitioners in this petition as well as two other petitions which were disposed of by the same order was directed to be sealed separately. The order dated 15.02.2008 passing directions for the sealed papers which were brought before us shows that we had felt it necessary to peruse all original answer-sheets. The answer-sheets of the petitioner herein who was respondent No.3 in the above writ petition was also inter alia seen. 3. The petitioner’s contention that the examination papers were called only in respect of three petitioners is incorrect. We had seen all the papers not only of the petitioners in those petitions as well as the petitioner herein, but the papers of other candidates also to satisfy ourselves about the kind of fraud alleged 3 in the petition and therefore it is incorrect to state that the examination papers of the petitioner neither called nor examined. This fact is made clear in order dated 15.02.2008. 4. Mr. Vaidya on behalf of the petitioner herein seeks to contend that the petitioner also challenges the impugned notices. The petitioner herein has not filed any petition to challenge the notices. He has not sought to be a party petitioner. He has been added as respondent No.3 to the petition upon his intervention application. His case has been considered in the totality of the case of all the candidates who appeared in the examination. 5. Hence, review petition has no merit and is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.)