IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO. ______ OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3484 OF 2020
(District: Mumbai)

Shri Madhavdutt Pandey …Applicant/Petitioner

Vs.

Dr. Ramesh Pokriyal “Nishank” & Ors …Respondents

INDEX

Sr. No Particulars Page Nos.

1. Memo of Review application and Affidavit-
in-Support

Date: Applicant

Place:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. ______ OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3484 OF 2020
(District: Mumbai)

In the matter of Order XLVII of the Civil

Procedure Code 1908 as amended;
AND
In the matter of Order dated 10.06.2022
passed in Writ Petition no.3484 of 2020

Shri Madhavdutt Pandey

S/o:
R/o: Flat no. 16, Building Mayflower,
Godrej Sky Garden, Takka,
Panvel, Navi Mumbai,
District-Raigad-410206 …Review Petitioner

Vs.

1. Dr. Ramesh Pokriyal “Nishank”

Holding office as Chancellor at
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
Deemed University, Janakpuri and
R/o Bungalow no 13, Teen Murti Lane,
 New Delhi-110011

2. Prof. Parmeshwara Narayan Shastry

Holding office as Vice-Chancellor at
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
Deemed University, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058

3. Prof. Sudesh Kumar Sharma

Holding office as Principal at
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, KJ Somaiyya,
Sanskrit Vidyapeeth,
Vidyavihar (E)

4. Union of India …Respondents

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF

THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

REVIEW PETITIONER ABOVE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Review Petitioner is filing the present review petition under
Order XLVII read with Section 114 and 151 of the of the Civil Procedure
Code and Rule 20 of the Bombay High Court Rules, for the review of the
Judgement and Order dated 10.06.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in
Writ Petition no. 3484 of 2020, by which this Hon’ble Court was pleased
to dismiss the said Writ Petition as withdrawn. A copy of the order dated
10.06.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition no. 3484 of
2020 is annexed and marked as Annexure-A.
2. The brief facts, relevant for the present case, are as under-
a. That the Review Petitioner has been a steadfast, diligent employee in
the Mumbai Campus of the Rashtriya Sanksrit Sansthan, now known
as Central Sanskrit University (established by an act of the
Parliament), holding a PHD in Sanskrit language, specifically in
“Vyakaran Drishtya Mahapuranam Samikshanatmak Madhyam”
and holds an excellent record that can be traced through a myriad
character and experience certificates issued by officials of Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan.
b. The Review Petitioner was employed on a contractual basis from
20.07.2009 to 30.04.2010 initially and his contract was extended from
time to time for a period of ten (10) academic years i.e., 2009-2019 at
the Mumbai campus of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan situated at
Vidya Vihar.
c. That the Review Petitioner’s last contract got over due to efflux of
time on 15.05.2019, and thereafter no renewal of contract was offered
to the Review Petitioner for the academic year 2019-2020, without
any means to reason and prior notice to its effect, thus leading to an
abrupt cessation of his services which resulted in the Review
Petitioner and his family being deprived of their livelihood and of
 their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.
d. That after the abrupt non-renewal of the contract of the Review
Petitioner herein, he submitted a representation dated 11.07.2019 to
the Central Sanskrit University seeking an explanation for the non-
renewal of the contract. The Review Petitioner did not receive any
response to the representation despite it being acknowledged by the
University. A copy of the representation dated 11.07.2019 made by
the Review Petitioner is annexed and marked as Annexure-B.
e. That on 04.09.2019, the aggrieved Review Petitioner submitted a
representation to the Central Sanskrit University again and to the
Prime Minister’s office. The grievance of the Review Petitioner was
acknowledged and letter no. 9-2/2019-Skt.II dated 05.09.2019 of the
under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human
Resources was written to the Principal of the Central Sanskrit
University, directing that the grievance of the Review Petitioner
should be addressed immediately and a report to this effect be filed by
the Central Sanskrit University. However, in total disregard to the
directions, no reply was received from the Central Sanskrit University.
A copy of the of the reply dated 05.09.2019 given by the Secretary to
the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources is annexed
and marked as Annexure-C.
f. The Review Petitioner was left with no other alternative but to
approach the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India vide Writ Petition bearing no. 3484 of 2020. A
copy of the Writ Petition bearing no. 3483 of 2020 without its
annexures is annexed and marked as Annexure-D.
g. However, the aforementioned Writ Petition was withdrawn on date
10.06.2022 due to the lack of jurisdiction. The copy of the order has
 already been annexed in the aforesaid paragraphs of this
Application/Petition.
h. That after withdrawing the Writ Petition from this Hon’ble Court, the
Review Petitioner, on date 14.07.2022 filed a Writ Petition bearing no.
10830 of 2022 at the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. A copy of the Writ
Petition bearing no. 10830 of 2022 without annexures is annexed and
marked as Annexure-E.
i. The matter first came up for hearing on 19.07.2022. That after arguing
at length on the maintainability of the Writ Petition, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi was courteous enough to allow the Advocates of the
Review Petitioner to bring on record a copy of the Writ Petition and
the orders passed in Writ Petition bearing no. 3484 of 2020, filed at
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. A copy of the order dated
19.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is annexed and
marked as Annexure-F.
j. That after compliance with the order dated 19.07.2022, the matter was
then taken up for hearing by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on
01.02.2023. After hearing the advocates of the Review Petitioner at
length, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was of the opinion that the Writ
Petition bearing no. WP (C) 10830 of 2022 was not maintainable as
the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in Writ Petition no. 3484 of 2020 did not read as, ‘dismissed
as withdrawn with the liberty to file afresh’. The Advocates of the
Review Petitioner apprised the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the said
omission was the result of the inadvertence of a junior advocate and
the rights of the Review Petitioner should not be curtailed for that
simple reason. Taking a humanitarian approach towards the plight of
the lawyers for the Review Petitioner, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
was kind enough to allow to take appropriate steps before the Hon’ble
 Bombay High Court. A copy of the order dated 01.02.2023 of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been annexed and marked as
Annexure-G.
k. That the matter was then listed for hearing on 24.04.2023. An
adjournment was sought on the grounds that the lawyer of the Review
Petitioner was unwell and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to list the
matter on 16.10.2023.
l. That subsequently on 07.02.2023 a modification application being
interim application no. 7814 of 2023 in Writ Petition no. 3483 of 2020
was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The matter was
listed on several occasions but could not be taken up for hearing due
to paucity of time. That the matter was then mentioned before the
appropriate corum on the 01.09.2023 and 06.09.2023 and the Hon’ble
court verbally directed the Review Petitioner to file a review
application.
3. In the aforesaid premises, the Review Petitioner humbly seek a review of
the judgement and order dated 10.06.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in Writ Petition no. 3483 of 2020 on the following amongst other grounds
which are being taken without prejudice to one another:

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of
the record.
B. Because during making the submissions for the withdrawal of the
Writ Petition no. 3484 of 2020, the liberty to file afresh was sought by the
Advocate of the Review Petitioner but it was inadvertently not recorded
as a junior lawyer appeared for the Review Petitioner and it is natural for
 somebody with less to no experience to be uninformed or rather not
aware about the intricacies of law and its fundamental principles.
C. Because the accidental and involuntary omission on the part of the junior
lawyer has left the Review Petitioner, an eminent professor of our oldest
profession and his family, on the road with no means whatsoever to feed
his family.
D. Because punishing the Review Petitioner for an inadvertence on the part
of a junior advocate would lead to travesty of justice qua the Review
petitioner herein.
E. Because the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is the need of the as the
review petitioner is suffering because of no fault of his own. The review
petitioner being responsible for imparting knowledge and shaping the life
of the youth of our country is in a situation which is not only
heartbreaking but also mournful.
F. Because the Review Petitioner being a litigant should not be made to
suffer for the lawyer’s inadvertence. Various High Courts have held in a
plethora of judgements, that the litigants should have to suffer for the
fault of their lawyer. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that in its
judgements passed in the year 2009.
G. The Review Petitioner has not filed any other review petition against the
order dated 10.06.2022 in this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

In the view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased:

a. To allow the present review petition seeking review of the order dated
10.06.2022 in Writ Petition no. 3484 of 2022; and
b. To pass such other and further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE REVIEW

PETITIONERS SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Date:
Place:
Advocates for the Review Petitioner

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Mumbai on , 2023 that the contents of the above

Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. ______ OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3484 OF 2020
(District: Mumbai)

Shri Madhavdutt Pandey …Applicant/Petitioner

Vs.

Dr. Ramesh Pokriyal “Nishank” & Ors …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Madhavdutt Pandey, aged about 45 years, R/o Flat no. 16, Building

Mayflower, Godrej Sky Garden, Takka, Panvel, Navi Mumbai, District-

Raigad-410206, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am the Applicant in the above noted case, and I am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to

swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Application has been drafted by my counsel

under my instructions and based on the documents provided by me. The

contents of the Application have been read by me and I fully understand

the contents of the same and the same may be read as a part and parcel of

this Affidavit as the contents of the same have not been repeated here for

the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Mumbai on ,2023 that the contents of the above

Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT