Bombay High Court
Abdul Aziz Son Of Late Ashraf Baig And Ors vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee And ... on 22 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
2024:BHC-AS:18550 927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 45 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1048 OF 2024
Abdul Aziz son of Late Ashraf Baig & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 52 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2024
Shamsunnisa Saeed Ahmed & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Vivek Shukla, with Fayzan Khan & Bushra Sayed, i/b Trupti
Gaikar, for the Petitioners in both Review Petitions.
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondents Nos 1 to 3-AGRC
& SRA in both Review Petitions.
Mr Aditya Miskita, with Neha Mehta, Aayushi Gohil, Umair
Merchant & Ria Sawant, for MT Miskita & Co, for Respondent
No 4- Budhpur Buildcon Pvt Ltd in both Review Petitions.
Mr Saurabh Utangale, for Respondent No 5-MHADA in both Review
Petitions.
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Digitally signed by
SUMEDH NAMDEO Page 1 of 3
SONAWANE
Date: 2024.04.23 22nd April 2024
10:55:12 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2024 17:30:05 :::
927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 22nd April 2024
PC:-
1. Review is sought of our order and judgment dated 23rd
February 2024. This is pressed on the footing that the judgment is
per incuriam. What is being attempted is now a reopening of the case
on merits. The judgment is a detailed 68-page reasoned judgment
that does not seem to have been set aside in appeal. In fact, there is a
long history noted. In paragraph 86 of the judgment, our attention
was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Om-
Sai Darshan CHSL (Proposed) v State of Maharashtra.1 We followed
that. It is now sought to be argued in a Review Petition that the
decision in Om-Sai Darshan (H.L. Gokhale and Abhay S Oak JJ as
they then were) is per incuriam and therefore our judgment is also
per incuriam.
2. The entire Review Petition is fundamentally misconceived
and not maintainable. Just the mere fact that a judgment refers to a
precedent and a submission is to be made on the precedent cited
does not make the judgment in question susceptible to Review. The
Petitioners seem to forget that we did not hold as we did on 23rd
February 2024 only because of the decision in Om-Sai Darshan. To
put it differently, even without the reference to the Om-Sai Darshan
precedent our judgment would have been the same. Besides the
Review Petition now attempt a substantive challenge on merits.
1 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 480: (2007) 1 Bom Cr 476.
22nd April 2024
927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
3. The Review Petition is entirely without merit. It is rejected.
For the reasons set out above, Review Petition No 52 of 2024 is also
rejected.
4. We have declined to note at copious length every submission
made by learned Advocate for the Review Petitioners. What we have
held is enough for a disposal. We refuse to take those written
submissions on record. It is not the law that every single submission
made by an Advocate must be noted and dealt with when the
Petition on the matter at hand can be disposed of on the central
aspect of it.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
22nd April 2024
