Ashtavinayak Swayam Sahayata Mahila Bachat Gat v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Department Of Food And Civil Supplies And ORS

Digitally signed by PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Date:

2025.04.25 12:59:54 +0530 PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK 904-rpw 70-25 in wp 14839-23.doc Prajakta Vartak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 70 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 14839 OF 2023 Ashtavinayak Swayam Sahayata

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

__________ Mr. Dushyant Pagare for Petitioner.

Mr. A. I. Patel, Add. G.P. with Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for State. Mr. Rahul Matkari with Ms. Manasi Pawar for Respondent No.4. __________ CORAM :

G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATE :

17 APRIL 2025 P.C.:

1.

By this review petition, the original petitioner seeks review of the order dated 10 March 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14839 of 2023.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, considering the prayer for review, has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the said order where we have observed that respondent no.4 was registered on 1 January 2018 which is being disputed by the petitioner on the ground that this may not be the correct position. However, no material is placed on record to show that the certificate dated 01 January 2018 in any manner known to law was declared 17 April 2025

904-rpw 70-25 in wp 14839-23.doc to be invalid, illegal or recalled. Thus, there cannot be any ground to review the observations as made by us in paragraph 4 in that regard. 3.

Insofar as paragraph 6 of the order is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no due certificate which is obtained from the bank however, our observations are not in regard to any dues on the accounts which were submitted by the petitioner and which was material to be taken into consideration to arrive at a lawful decision by the authority. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept any contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is any error apparent on the face of the order. The review petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly rejected. No costs.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.] 17 April 2025