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 Anr …Petitioners 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. CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 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 September 10, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI Digitally signed by ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI Date: 2026.09.19 11:23:17 +0530 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 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.] September 10, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati