Bombay High Court
AHMADODDIN WAHIDODDIN TADVIversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The review application is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Summary
Ahmadoddin Wahidoddin Tadvi filed a writ petition in 2015 challenging a 1994-95 recruitment process, alleging that a lower‑ranked candidate was appointed over him. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of delay and laches. In 2026 Tadvi filed a review application contending that the court had ignored his numerous representations to the authorities and that compensation should be awarded. No respondent appeared. The court examined the review petition, found no apparent error in the original order, noted that compensation was not prayed for, and consequently dismissed the review application.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches can be set aside on review.
- Whether the petitioner’s representations made up to 2015 defeat the doctrine of laches.
- Whether compensation can be awarded in the absence of a specific prayer.
Subjects
- delay
- laches
- review of judgment
- recruitment
- compensation
- writ petition
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42667-DB
21-RA.77.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
21 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 77 OF 2026
IN WP/9208/2015
Ahmadoddin Wahidoddin Tadvi
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Through Its
Managing Director And Another
...
Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.
None for the Respondents.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant.
2. None appears for the respondents inspite of service.
3. This Review Application is sought of the order dated
30.08.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9208 of 2015. By
way of the said order, this Court refused to entertain writ petition on
the ground of delay and laches. It was observed that the recruitment
process of the year 1994-95 was challenged in the year 2015. The
grievance was that a person who was below the petitioner in the
waiting list was subsequently appointed by ignoring the claim of the
petitioner. This Court found that the grievance is hit by delay and
laches and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
Sayyed 1/2
21-RA.77.2026.doc
4. There is no error apparent on the face of record as such
pointed out by the Advocate for the applicant. He submits that infact,
various representations were made by the petitioner to the
authorities and that the petitioner continued to make such
representations till 2015. He further submits that the petitioner had
earlier filed Writ Petition No.3240 of 2015, same was withdrawn on
instructions. He submits that the Court ought to have entertained
writ petition and that the observation about delay and laches is
without considering those representations submitted by the petitioner
and the order passed in the said writ petition.
5. Be that as it may, the learned Advocate for the applicant
further submits that atleast the Court should have granted
compensation, as the petitioner’s rightful claim was denied by the
action of the respondents. This Court is not much impressed with this
submission as there was no prayer in the petition for compensation.
6. Considering above, this Court does not find that any error
apparent on the face of record. Review Application stands dismissed.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 2/2
Checking your session…