Bhagirathi Stree Shikshan Sanstha Aurangabad Throu Its Secretary And ANR v. Rajesh Shankarrao Waghaskar And ORS

Review Petition No.236/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO.236 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7797 OF 2009 Bhagirathi Stree Shikshan Sanstha and another ...

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Rajesh s/o Shankarrao Waghaskar and others ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri R.M. Mahale, Advocate holding for Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicants Shri J.R. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri G.B. Rajale, Advocate for respondent No.1 .....

CORAM:

R.D. DHANUKA AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED:

18th September, 2017.

ORAL ORDER :

1.

By this review petition, the petitioners seek recall of the order dated 26/6/2012, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, thereby directing the applicant (original respondent No.6) to deposit an amount of Rs.3,34,500/- with the registry of this Court within two weeks from the date of the said order to show their bonafides. The review petitioners were granted liberty to produce proof of payment of salary. Neither the said amount was deposited nor any reply has been filed by the review petitioners in the Writ petition. The said order has not been

Review Petition No.236/2012 complied since July 2012.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners states that the salary has been already paid by the review petitioners. Though liberty was granted by this Court to make deposit of the said amount and to show the proof of payment and made it clear that if this Court would be satisfied, the amount deposited can be refunded to the management, no amount is deposited for more than five years. 3.

We do not find any error apparent on the face of the order. The review petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

4.

The review petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by this Court within four weeks from today, failing which this Court would be compelled to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned office bearers of the applicants.

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (R.D. DHANUKA) JUDGE JUDGE fmp/