1 RPW 34-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.34 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.219 OF 2010 IN P.I.L. NO.97 OF 2009 Shoaib Richie Sequeira ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Shoaib Richie Sequeira, Petitioner in person present. Mr.A.M. Sethna for respondent No.1. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.V. More, JJ. DATE : 16 July 2010. P.C. : 1. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 16 June 2010 passed by a Division Bench consisting of F.I. Rebello & R.V. More, JJ. in Notice of Motion No.219 of 2010 in P.I.L. No.97 of 2009. Since Rebello, J. is elevated as Chief Justice and has taken charge of the Allahabad High Court, 2 RPW 34-10 as per the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter is placed before us. 2. By an order dated 7 April 2010, P.I.L. No.97 of 2009 was dismissed by the Division Bench consisting of F.I. Rebello & A.A. Sayyed, JJ. on the ground that a similar P.I.L. filed by the petitioner on the same subject being P.I.L. No.17 of 2009 was disposed of on 2 April 2009 without any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same subject. 3. The petitioner took out a Notice of Motion No.219 of 2010 for recalling the order dated 7 April 2010 passed in P.I.L. No.97 of 2009. The said Notice of Motion was dismissed on 16 June 2010 on the ground that the earlier P.I.L. No.17 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 2 April 2009 without any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the review petition is that the order dated 16 June 2010 has been passed without considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner and without considering the order passed in P.I.L. No. 97 of 2009 on 17 September 2009. There is no merit in the above contention, because the order passed on 17 September 2009 was an interim order and not a final order. Final order disposing of P.I.L. No.97 of 2009 was passed on 7 April 2010, on the ground that the petitioner had filed similar petition being P.I.L. No.17 of 2009 which was disposed of on 2 April 2009 3 RPW 34-10 without any liberty to file fresh petition and, therefore, P.I.L. No.97 of 2009 could not be entertained. Notice of Motion taken out by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 7 April 2010 was also dismissed on the very same ground. Therefore, reliance placed on the interim order passed on 17 September 2009 in P.I.L. No.97 of 2009 is misplaced. The order dated 16 June 2010 is based on a plain reading of the order passed in P.I.L. No.17 of 2009 on 2 April 2009. Merely because, the petitioner disagrees with the order of the Division Bench cannot be a ground to review the order of the Division Bench. 4. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for reviewing the order passed in Notice of Motion on 16 June 2010. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. (R.V. More, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)