← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/794/2023rejected

Ku. Sharda Uttamdas Rathod v. The State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development And Water Conservation Dept. Mumbai And Others

2024-12-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi2 pages

2024:BHC-NAG:13992-DB 1 940 cao 794.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 794/2023 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW)(ST) NO. 6076/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 652/2020(D) (Ku. Sharda Uttamdas Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.D. Dangore, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for non-applicant No.1/State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 19/12/2024.

Heard.

2.

The prayer is for reviewing the order dated 03.02.2023 delivered in Writ Petition No. 652/2020. 3.

The non-applicant No.4 was appointed vide order dated 16.03.2016 which was questioned in 2020 i.e. after a period of almost about four years.

4.

The explanation is coming forth from the petitioner that in the interregnum i.e. from the date of appointment till the filing of this petition, the petitioner has preferred various representations which were not decided. 5.

Merely because representations were preferred that by itself does not mean that the claim of the petitioner has been brought within a reasonable period. The fact remains

2 940 cao 794.23 that the claim has been made at a belated stage. 6.

Apart from above, the petitioner has a remedy to take recourse under Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

7.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view, that there is no case for causing interference in review jurisdiction. Hence, application stands rejected. ( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.) ( NITIN W.SAMBRE , J.) Gohane