Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs M/S. Sandeep Dwellers Private ... on 18 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
cao695.22.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CAO No.695/2022 & MCA St. No.13043/2022 IN WRIT PETITION
NO.3622/2021
The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Revenue and Forest
Department, Mantrayala, Mumbai -32 and other
-Vs.-
M/s. Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited, Through its Director, Mr. Gaurav
Agrarwala.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for the applicant.
Mr. Kartik N. Shukul, Advocate for original petitioner/non-
applicant.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE
AND SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18.10.2022
Heard.
2. This application is staunchly opposed by original
petitioner, who is non-applicant here on the ground that the
delay has not been properly and satisfactorily explained. It is
also submitted that the explanation given for the delay is
stereotyped putting all the blame on the bureaucratic
machinery, which takes its own time in preparing the review
proposal, taking a decision to accord its sanction.
3. We are conscious of the fact that the delay has been
cao695.22.odt
explained only on the ground of time required for
completion of decision making process, which is so typical to
any institution bureaucratically organized. But, it is a matter
of common knowledge that in such an institution,
consumption of considerable time at different hierarchical
levels is implicit in and inherent to the system itself and,
therefore, such delay has to be considered not as deliberate
on the part of the State Government. Once the delay is
considered to be not deliberate, the delay which occurs in
filing of review proceeding has to be condoned. This is what
has happened in the present case and, therefore, we are
inclined to allow the application.
4. Civil Application is allowed.
5. Review Application be registered.
6. Shri Kartik N. Shukul, learned counsel for the
original petitioner/non-applicant waives notice for final
hearing.
7. Reply may be filed by the non-applicant on or before
the next date.
8. On the next date, this matter is likely to be taken up
for final disposal.
9. The learned AGP has made a request for grant of
interim relief in the nature of stay to the effect and operation
of the judgment sought to be reviewed, which prayer is
opposed by the learned counsel for original petitioner/non-
applicant.
cao695.22.odt
10. Considering the fact that there is no urgency in the
matter, we would not consider this request at this time. In
any case, this matter is likely to be taken up for final disposal
on the next date. Therefore, the prayer for grant interim
relief, if any, could be considered at that time.
Stand over to 10.11.2022, at 2.30 p.m.
(SMT.M.S. JAWALKAR J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Ambulkar.
