Bombay High Court
HON SECRETARY ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI MEMORIAL AND ANRversusLAXMAN SHIVAJI GODSE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that none of the alleged grounds amounted to an error on the face of the record and therefore the review jurisdiction was not attracted.
Summary
The Review Petition No. 83 of 2026 was filed by the Hon Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memorial against Laxman Shivaji Godse, seeking a review of the judgment dated 17 January 2026 in Writ Petition 12071 of 2024. The petitioners raised three grounds: alleged delay and laches in approaching the Grievance Committee, a claim that a ten‑year lapse amounted to abandonment of the grievance, and the non‑joinder of AICTE and Pune University as necessary parties. The respondent contended that the grounds were either not pleaded in writing, had already been addressed, and that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. The Court examined the record, found that none of the three grounds constituted a valid ground for review, and held that the review jurisdiction was not attracted. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed and costs of Rs 25,000 were awarded to the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether delay and laches by the original petitioner constitute a valid ground for a review of the earlier judgment.
- Whether a ten‑year lapse amounts to abandonment of the claim, thereby justifying a review.
- Whether the non‑joinder of AICTE and Pune University is a ground for granting a review.
- Whether the review petition is maintainable under the review jurisdiction in the absence of an apparent error on the record.
Subjects
- review petition
- delay
- laches
- abandonment
- non‑joinder
- procedural law
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- costs
Judgment
904-RPW-83-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 83 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12071 OF 2024
Hon Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memorial And …Petitioners
Anr
Versus
Laxman Shivaji Godse …Respondent
Mr. Abhijeet Joshi, i/b Shrikrishna R. Ganbavale for the Review
Petitioners.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, a/w Vaidehi Pradeep, Pratham Gawali,
Pratishtha Shukla for Respondent.
Digitally
signed by
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
ASHWINI
ASHWINI JANARDAN
JANARDAN VALLAKATI
VALLAKATI Date:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
2026.09.19
11:23:17
+0530
ORDER :
1. This Review Petition seeks a review of the judgement dated January 17,
2026 seeking a review of the order on three grounds. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi,
Learned Advocate on behalf of the Review Petitioners presses into service
three specific grounds.
2. First, that delay and laches on the part of the Original Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.12071 of 2024 (“ WP 12071”) in approaching the Grievance
Committee, has not been dealt with in the judgement of which review is
Page 1 of 4
September 10, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
904-RPW-83-2026.doc
sought. Mr. Joshi submits that paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply dated
December 19, 2025 had raised the issue of delay and laches (at page 83 of the
Review Petition) and that this has not been dealt with.
3. Second, Mr. Joshi also points to para 33 of the original Writ Petition to
indicate that the complaint had been made 10 years later and this constitutes
an abandonment of the claim against the authority which looked at the records
for the period between 2004 and 2009.
4. Third, the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) and the
Pune University had not been made parties by the Petitioner and they would
have been necessary parties to address this Court on implications of
considering the same. Mr. Joshi would fairly state that the submission of a
non-joinder of AICTE and Pune University is not to be found in the pleadings
in the proceedings but contends that the point was orally argued and has not
been dealt with.
5. Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Original
Petitioner and the Respondent in this Review Petition submits that every point
raised and not considered cannot form the basis of maintaining a review, and
that too when admittedly one of the contentions was not even pleaded in
writing. That apart, he would submit that the contention about delay and
latches is evidently addressed by the fact that every continuing day of
Petitioner suffering by the wrong base used for assessing his remuneration
Page 2 of 4
September 10, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
904-RPW-83-2026.doc
would constitute a continuing grievance, and that therefore, the grounds
raised do not lend themselves for acceptance of this Review Petition.
6. Mr. Deshmukh submits a table of past instances with various employees
to indicate that the Review Petitioner has had a consistent standard operating
procedure for filing reviews without implementing orders passed in writ
petitions and therefore, while dismissing this Review Petition, costs must also
be imposed.
7. Having heard Learned Advocates for the parties and having examined
the record with their assistance, in my opinion, the grounds sought to be
raised in the Review Petition do not constitute valid grounds in the review
jurisdiction. It was always open to the Review Petitioner to have challenged
the judgement of which review is sought, but that has not been done and
instead a review has been filed. The specific question to be answered by this
Court at this stage is whether the review jurisdiction is at all attracted. In my
view, none of the three grounds constitutes a ground for review. No error
apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out.
8. The approach of the Petitioner does fit Mr. Deshmukh’s submission that
filing of a Review Petition after considerable delay without implementing
directions passed by the writ courts, appears to be a standard operating
procedure. At least seven past instances with Writ Petitions ranging from 2012
to 2024 have been pointed to, where Review Petitions have been filed.
Page 3 of 4
September 10, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
904-RPW-83-2026.doc
9. I am not inclined to be drawn into establishing patterns at this stage,
but upon a query from the Bench as to whether an Expert Committee has been
constituted and whether meetings are being held as directed every two
months, it is stated that the Expert Committee has not been constituted and
that such committee should be formed by the University. Upon a query as to
whether the Review Petitioner has written to the University with the records of
the employees asking constitution of the Expert Committee, it is apparent that
no such action has been taken.
10. In the circumstances, while rejecting the Review Petition as being
without merit, it would be appropriate to grant costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000
to be paid by the Review Petitioner to the Respondent (the Original Petitioner)
within a period of four weeks from the upload of this Order on the Court’s
website.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the Review Petition is dismissed.
12. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken
upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 4 of 4
September 10, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.