Bombay High Court
DR. MAHADEO BABURAO GHULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF MAHA. ROAD TRANSPORT AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as it is not maintainable; the matter must be pursued by appeal.
Summary
Dr. Mahadeo B. Ghule filed a review petition challenging the High Court's order dated 8 July 2019 in PIL No. 205 of 2016, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record and non‑consideration of relevant statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to re‑argue the entire PIL on its merits. The Court held that such re‑argument is beyond the scope of a review and that the appropriate remedy is an appeal against the impugned order. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court also ordered that no costs be awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the review petition is maintainable on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record and non‑consideration of statutory provisions.
- Whether a review jurisdiction permits re‑argument of the merits of the original PIL.
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- public interest litigation
- error apparent on record
- statutory provisions
- costs
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35427-DB
6-RPI-1-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2020
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 205 OF 2016
Dr. Mahadeo Baburao Ghule .. Review Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
Dr. Mahadeo B. Ghule, Petitioner appeared in person.
Mr. Prathmesh Mandlik, with Mr. Aaditya Mahamiya, i/b Mr.
Nitesh Bhutekar, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2026
P. C.
1. The above Review Petition is filed seeking a review of the order
dated 8th July 2019 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 205 of 2016. The
Review Petitioner is a party in person. It is in these circumstances that we
have heard the Review Petitioner at great length. We have also perused the
Review Petition.
2. Apart from ground (a) in the Review Petition, which says that the
judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of record
Page 1 of 2
AUGUST 27, 2026
Darshan Patil
6-RPI-1-2020.doc
and non-consideration of relevant statutory provisions, which in turn has
resulted in the deprivation of the legal rights of the Petitioner, nothing has
been pointed out to us in that regard. In fact, the Petitioner in person has
sought to re-argue the entire Public Interest Litigation on merits. This is also
clear from the grounds raised in the Review Petition. Unfortunately, this is
not the remit of our Review Jurisdiction. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the
order passed by this Court dated 8th July 2019, his remedy lies in challenging
the said order. We cannot sit in Appeal over the order passed by the alternate
bench and rehear the matter.
3. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the above Review
Petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
4. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 2 of 2
AUGUST 27, 2026
Darshan Patil
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/08/2026 14:54:55
Checking your session…