← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/56/2017disposed off

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad v. Shri Sharadkumar Bhaskar Khandekar And ORS

2017-03-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prakash D. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.52 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4857 OF 2016 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune

...Petitioner

Versus

Latika Balasaheb Kakade

...Respondent

WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.53 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2965 OF 2015 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune

...Petitioner

Versus

Jayshree Madhukar Lohkare

...Respondent

WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.54 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2015 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune

...Petitioner

Versus

Varsha Nagnath Satpute

...Respondent

1/3

WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.56 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3224 OF 2015 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune

...Petitioner

Versus

Sharadkumar Bhaskar Khandekar and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Pankaj Pandey, for the Applicants/Ori. Respondents. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondent No. 1/Ori. Petitioners. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ.

DATE :

MARCH 16, 2017 (IN CHAMBER) P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petitions. The delay is of 27 days. We find that the same has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Review Petitions is condoned. The Civil Applications are allowed. The Civil Applications stand disposed of as such.

2/3

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Review Petitions.

3.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order of which the review is sought, we are of the view that no case is made out to invoke the jurisdiction of the review which is extremely limited.

4.

Accordingly, the Review Petitions are dismissed. (RANJIT V. MORE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.) 3/3