Maroti Bhauraoji Chandankhede ... vs High Court Of Judicature At ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12683 Bom

                                                                                           (1)                                           cao292.19


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.292/2019 IN
          MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.27217/2018 (Fore Review) IN
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3705/2004 (D)
    Maroti s/o Bhauraoji Chandankhede, Retired Dy. Chief Translator and Interpreter,
     High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Nagpur .vs. High Court of
    Judicature at Bombay, Bombay through Registrar General, Mumbai and another

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                           Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Mr. V. G. Bhamburkar, Advocate for applicant.
                                  Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. M. Kukday,
                                  Advocate for non applicant no.1.

                                  CORAM :                  A. S. CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 6, 2022.

The applicant seeks review of judgment dated 10.09.2018 in Writ Petition No.3705/2004 by which judgment the writ petition preferred by the present applicant challenging the promotion of non applicant no.2 on the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter came to be dismissed.

Since there is delay in filing the review application, we have heard learned counsel for the applicant also on the review application with a view to consider whether notices should be issued on the delay application.

Heard.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, we find that the grounds that were urged while arguing the writ petition are sought to be reagitated. It would not be (2) cao292.19

permissible in review jurisdiction to reopen the entire proceedings. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record. It is for the applicant to take necessary steps if he is so aggrieved by the judgment under review.

Hence, the application as well as Miscellaneous civil application stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

kahale

Digitally signed byYOGESH ARVIND KAHALE Signing Date:06.12.2022 18:44