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 2026:BHC-AUG:42667-DB 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 He further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.3240 of 2015, same was withdrawn on instructions.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