The principle of finality of judgments and the limited grounds for intervention in final judgments, the need for review applications to be heard by the same Judge, and the inappropriateness of impleading Judges to review petitions were central legal points established in the judgment.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

On this writ petition, along with two civil applications, a Division Bench of this Court (Bench at Aurangabad) on 23rd October, 2015 passed the following order :-

"Party in person present 1) In the present petition the petitioner/party in person has impleaded the High Court as respondent No. 1; Hon'ble the Chief Justice as respondent No. 2; Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Oak, as respondent No. 3 and Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Menon as respondent No. 4. Secondly, vide one of the prayers, the petitioner is seeking addition of some provision in the Circular/Order dated 6th January, 2010 issued by the High Court. 2) In view of the above, in terms of Circular/Order dated 6th January, 2010, this matter will have to be heard by the principal seat at Mumbai. Hence, the present writ petition along with the Civil Applications filed therein, be placed before the principal seat."

2. It is in the above circumstances that the writ petition, along with two civil applications was placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side and Her Ladyship was pleased to pass an administrative direction assigning these matters to a bench presided over by S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

3. Accordingly, with advance intimations and as per convenience of the party appearing in person, we heard these matters and reserved judgment on 17th February, 2016. The petitioner party in person has, by this petition, submitted that a writ petition was filed at Aurangabad Bench of this Court being Writ Petition No. 3696 of 2012. That writ petition essentially projected the grievance stated to be of common helpless citizens in not being able to present and file petitions and applications in Marathi language in this Court. A grievance was raised in that petition about alleged discrimination and differential treatment to litigants who wish to present and institute proceedings in Marathi and press and argue them in that language. It appears that the grievance was that this being the language of the State, the petitioner party in person must be allowed to file and institute petitions and equally to argue them in Marathi.

4. On that petition, a detailed judgment and order was passed, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'Q' at pages 134-142 of this petition.

5. The petitioner was not satisfied with this judgment and order and sought review of the same. He filed Civil Application No. 7378 of 2012. Both, the original petition and the review petition/application were placed before a Division Bench at Aurangabad Bench of this Court. On the review petition/application, on 27th November, 2012, the Division Bench at Aurangabad passed a detailed order, but that detailed order took care of some other grievance of the petitioner before us. That was with regard to recusal of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil P. Deshmukh as a member of the Bench hearing the review application. Since it was directed to be placed before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil P. Deshmukh is not a member, thereafter, the said review petition/application was placed before a Bench at Aurangabad on 30th September, 2013. That Bench passed an order, copy of which is at page 102 of the paper book.

6. The petition does not indicate the fate of review application. Thereafter, that review application, which was originally numbered as Review Application (St) No. 15820 of 2012 and then numbered as Review Application No. 191 of 2013, along with other civil applications and one Writ Petition No. 3696 of 2012, was placed before a Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.H. Joshi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Ghuge at Aurangabad. That Bench passed an order on 19th November, 2013 holding that the petitioners accept the position that this Court in para 11 of order dated 27th April, 2012 had taken care of prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the writ petition. Yet, the petitioner was heard by the Bench and the Bench observed that the Court had, on the earlier occasion, advised the petiti