Chandrapal Angadrao Kamble v. Satish Maruti Margane And Others

*1* 915ca13495o22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13495 OF 2022 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.21806 OF 2022 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.21806 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5164 OF 2022 CHANDRAPAL ANGADRAO KAMBLE

VERSUS

SATISH MARUTI MARGANE AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Applicant : Shri Tapse Patil Pradeep V. AGP for the Respondents/State : Shri S.G. Karlekar ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATE :- 30th September, 2022 Per Court :- 1.

Considering that the delay of 43 days is minor delay and for the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.

2.

We called upon the learned advocate for the applicant to address us on the Review Application. 3.

The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the Review Application is filed since he was not party to Writ

*2* 915ca13495o22 Petition No.5164/2022 (Satish Maruti Margane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) wherein, this Court (Coram : R.D. Dhanuka and Anil L. Pansare, JJ) passed the order on 06.06.2022.

4.

We find that in the order dated 06.06.2022, this Court only directed the Director of Marketing to decide the pending proposal dated 01.11.2017 filed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, within a period of three months, if not already decided. According to the review petitioner, the said proposal is still not decided. 5.

We are unable to comprehend as to why the Review Petition has been filed when the order of this Court was to the statutory authority to decide the pending proceeding. The review petitioner is not party to the writ petition. He claims to be the Secretary of the Society. If that society is party to the pending proposal before the Director of Marketing, the review petitioner should approach the said authority.

6.

In view of the above, this Review Petition is dismissed.

kps (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)