1 4-ca-9942-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9942 OF 2026 IN RAST/19838/2026 Rajendra Kashinath Pare And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ... Mr. B. S. Doifode h/f Mr. Y. L. Bidve, Advocate for Applicants Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. Respondent-State Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent no.4 and 5 ….. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9942 OF 2026 . Heard learned Advocate for the applicants. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Application stands allowed. Delay stands condoned. REVIEW APPLICATION ST NO.19838 OF 2026 1. We have heard this Review Application. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that this Court has not applied the judgment in the case of Anjuman-E- Taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1921. He further submits that the Principal 2026:BHC-AUG:39728-DB 2 4-ca-9942-2026 Seat at Bombay while deciding Writ Petition No.1279 of 2026 has held the said judgment to be applicable. However, in the present matter, the same judgment has not been held to be applicable and therefore, the same has been wrongly considered. 3. This Court finds that the order sought to be reviewed is dated 23.04.2026. Whereas the order passed in Writ Petition No.1279 of 2026 is of 29.07.2026. Learned Advocate thus submits that the said judgment be held to be applicable in the present case. Since, this Court has not correctly considered the said judgment, there is a case made out for entertaining the Review Application. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. S. R. Dheple, for the Zilla Parishad submits that this Court has already dismissed a Review Application in the same set of facts being Review Application no.113 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.2752 of 2026 by order dated 13.08.2026. He further submits that in a similar matter, the judgment of this Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) Diary No.31533 of 2026 and the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition. He submits that merely because there is a change in view of the Court, no review is maintainable. 3 4-ca-9942-2026 5. This Court has considered the submissions. Now, it is a trite law that the scope of Review Application is very limited. In the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another, reported at 2025 INSC 1080, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already set out the parameters for entertaining a Review Application. Even otherwise, this Court finds no parameters of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code are made out by the applicants. 6. Considering above, this Court does not find any reason to review the order. The Review Application therefore stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Rushikesh/2026