The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... vs Sitaram Mamtaji Pote
2022 Latest Caselaw 10663 Bom

                                               1-RPW-109-2022 +2



Pdp


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           REVIEW PETITION NO. 109 OF 2022
                         IN
            WRIT PETITION NO. 7154 OF 2019
                        WITH
        INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19082 OF 2022

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.          .. Petitioners
          Vs.
Mrs. Rekha Vijay Dubey                   .. Respondents

                        WITH
           REVIEW PETITION NO. 109 OF 2022
                         IN
            WRIT PETITION NO. 7221 OF 2019
                        WITH
        INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19079 OF 2022

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.          .. Petitioners
          Vs.
Sitaram Mamtaji Pote                     .. Respondents

                        WITH
           REVIEW PETITION NO. 108 OF 2022
                         IN
            WRIT PETITION NO. 7191 OF 2019
                        WITH
        INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19081 OF 2022

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.          .. Petitioners
          Vs.
Shashikant K. Chinchkar                  .. Respondent

Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for petitioners-State.
Mr. Gaurav A. Bandiwadekar for respondents.

                CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
                       M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2022

1-RPW-109-2022 +2

P.C.:

1. The Government of Maharashtra seeks review of our common judgment and order dated September 24, 2021 on the grounds urged in the petition memos, more particularly Ground (A) under paragraph 3.

2. We have read the judgment and order under review. In view of what was recorded in paragraph 12 of such judgment, it cannot be said that there has been any error on the face of the record. The remedy of the Government, if any, against the impugned judgment, is not a review but an appeal before the Supreme Court.

3. Even otherwise, we find the review petitions to be barred by gross delay.

4. We, therefore, dismiss the review petitions both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

5. There shall be no order as to costs. SALUNKE JV Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2022.10.13 19:33:52 +0530 (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)