Bombay High Court
Vasanta Gopalrao Khawale And Others vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Urban ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
Bench: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
mca 741-2025.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.741/2025 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3147/2022(D)
Vasanta Khawale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri N.B. Bargat, Advocate for petitioners
Ms. S.S. Jachak, Addl.GP for respondent/State
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ..
DATE : 07.11.2025
By this application, the applicant is seeking review
of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this
Court.
2. According to the applicants, at the time of final
argument, they were not possessing the copies of judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in M/s. A.P.
Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. The Tahsildar and
others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 447, State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280
and Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs. Additional Collector and
Competent Authority (ULC) and others reported in (2014)
12 SCC 523.
3. The applicants want to rely upon these case laws to
state that this Court while exercising the powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can look into the
disputed questions of fact and, therefore, relying on these
mca 741-2025.odt
judgments, his submission is that this Court again look into
the factual position and decide the petition afresh.
4. It will be necessary to state that the powers under
review, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in catena of cases time and again, held that
it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the Review Court
does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the
matter is impermissible in law. It is also trite that exercise of
inherent jurisdiction can not invoke for review of any order.
Thus, it is followed that power of review can be exercised
for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The
powers of review can be exercised within the limits of the
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review can
not be treated an appeal in disguise.
5. Not only this, as per the settled position of law, the
powers of review have to be strictly confined to the scope
and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The power of review can be exercised when some mistake
or error apparent on the face of record. But, there is also an
exception to this, that such an error must strike merely
looking at the record and would not require any long drawn
process of reasoning on the points where they may be
conceivable to take opinions.
6. In the light of above said legal position and perusal
of the judgment delivered by this Court, it is clear that there
mca 741-2025.odt
is a serious dispute of the factual position in the matter. So
also there was inordinate delay and latches on the part of
applicants to approach this Court. Hence, this Court by
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and by appreciating the facts, prima facie
available on record, dismissed the petition on the ground of
delay and latches. So also held that, this Court cannot look
into the serious disputed facts of the matter by exercising
writ jurisdiction.
7. In the above background, the ground on which the
petitioners are seeking review, according to us, is not
permissible. The case laws which petitioners are relying
upon, though stated that this Court while exercising the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
look into the factual position, the same is depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case, but considering the
facts of the present matter, we are of the considered opinion
that there is a serious dispute on factual position in the
matter. Hence, in our considered opinion, we are not
inclined to re-appreciate the entire facts in the review
application.
8. So also, as per the settled principles of law as well
as the provisions of review, it is not permissible to re-
appreciate the entire factual position while deciding the
review application.
mca 741-2025.odt
9. The applicant failed to point out any error apparent
on the face of record in the judgment and review is liable to
be dismissed.
10. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons, we find no
merit in the application and accordingly, the application
stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/11/2025 14:57:47
