Smt. Chhaya Shyamnath Kumbhare v. State Of Maharashtra, Rural Development Through Its Secretary, Mumbai And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A.NO. 335/2015 IN W.P.NO. 19/2015.

Smt. Chhaya Shyamnath Kumbhare -VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and others.

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM

: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & S.B.SHUKRE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 26, 2015.

Shri G.G. Bade, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri N.R.Rode, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri J.S. Mokadam, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel points out that they were intervenors in Writ Petition No. 19/2015. Shri Bade, learned Counsel for applicant, therefore, seeks leave to join those intervenors as party respondents in Misc. Civil Application No. 335/2015. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

By consent of parties, prayer for review is

taken up.

Effort of Shri Bade, learned Counsel is to demonstrate that the work distribution is carried out in meeting of Standing Committee held on 17.11.2014; works were distributed and that distribution has been deviated and different works find mention in the administrative order granting approval to works issued on 18.03.2015. Learned Counsel submits that thus, respondent no.2 Chief Executive Officer has acted contrary to the resolution and that could not have been undertaken.

Respective Counsel appearing for respondents point out that this development is after dismissal of the Writ Petition No.19/2015 by this Court on 24.02.2015, but, Shri Kilor, learned Counsel mentions that the departure is because of resolutions of the Works Committee resolution dated 16.12.2014 and 13.02.2015.

It is apparent that this was not the challenge in Writ petition No.19/2015. An event which has come to knowledge after 24.02.2015 is, being pressed into service. If that event confers any cause of action upon the review applicant, it is open to the

review applicant to file appropriate proceedings for redressal of said grievance. That cannot be a ground to review the earlier orders passed by this Court. Hence, with said liberty to the review applicant, we dispose of the Misc. Civil Application. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.