← Library
Bombay High CourtRA/203/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-06-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4881 OF 2016 Mr. Pralhad s/o Chendiram Shelke, Age-48 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Police Colony, Sudhakar Nagar, Beed-By-Pass, Aurangabad.

...APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary for State of Maharashtra, Madam Kama Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.

...RESPONDENTS ...

Mr.Ulhas S. Sawji Advocate for Applicant.

Mr.P.G. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.

1 to 5.

...

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2017 ORDER :

1.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicant. Though as many

as 7 grounds are taken in the Review Application, during the course of the hearing of the Review Application, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant has confined his arguments to Ground No.6 only. He submits that this Court has made observations in Para-5 of the order under review that, it is for the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He further submits that though by taking aid of those observations the Review Applicant can approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, nevertheless the Writ Petition has been rejected. It is submitted that since Writ Petition has been rejected, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal may not entertain the Review Application. Therefore, he submits that this Court may issue necessary clarification.

2.

In Para-5 of the order under review, we have observed that, in case the Petitioner is of opinion that some factual errors have been creeped in the impugned Judgment, it is for the Petitioner

to seek appropriate remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In in our opinion, the apprehension of the counsel appearing for the Review Applicant is misplaced in view of the observations made by us in Para-5 of the order under review.

3.

With the above observations, the Review Application stands disposed of.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JUN17