N.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS review petition is filed in view of the order of the Supreme Court dt. 7.4.1994 against the judgment of this Court dt. 28.9.1993 whereby the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.
(2.) IN pursuance of the show cause notice issued by this Court, Mr. M.R. Singhvi filed reply on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1,2, and 4 and Mr. Jangir has filed reply on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. The non -petitioners raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the review petition. It has been stated that in the grab of this review petition, the Advocate on record has made some new persons Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as party who were not party in the original writ petition and by this attempt the petitioners practised fraud upon the Court as they were never party in the original writ petition Nos. 4426/93, DBC Special Appeal Nos. 600/93 and not before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It has also been stated that the petitioners have tried to enlarge the scope of the review petition by placing new material on record of the persons who were not even party. The petitioners have made reference of the facts of writ petition Nos. 6178/92 Prem Prakash v. State to misled the Court. On merits also the respondents filed reply submitting that there was no occasion to file reply as the writ petition was dismissed in limine. In the reply the respondents have stated that the present petitioners never pursuaded their regular course of study nor their names were entered in the regular scroll register of the school. It has also been stated that the writ petition and the special appeal are rightly rejected and there is no error apparent on the face of record.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 in its reply has raised preliminary objections stating that it is a review petition and the petitioner is not permitted to place new material which was not placed in the earlier proceedings. It has been stated that the petitioners have misstated the facts. It has also been stated that the petitioners were never admitted as regular students except three candidates who deposited Rs. 1/ - only. It has been further stated that the petitioners never appeared in the written test and the alleged receipt Nos. 33/72 (Anx. 9) is false where no such receipt was issued on 22.10.1989 in favour of Narayan Prasad similarly the affidavit of Vishnu Dutt is also incorrect as also that of Nand Kishore is false since no receipt was issued in favour of these persons. The respondent No. 3 has stated that Anx. 22 is also false and therefore, this Court should take necessary and appropriate legal action. The review petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs.;