1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.774/2010. (Bhagwan s/o Kishanrao Giram Vs. Daivashila w/o Haribhau Soge and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.MK Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.SS Rathi, Adv. for Respondents. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2) In First Appeal No.8/2001, Award was accorded by learned Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, at Parbhani on 9.4.2007, directing the present petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,88,370/- with simple interest @ 12% from the date of death dated 24.5.2001 till full liquidation of the decretal amount. Penalty was also directed. 3) The petitioner questioned this order dated 9.4.2007 by filing Review Petition No.78/2007 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Ex Officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, at Parbhani, seeking review. 4) The principal grounds addressed by Mr.MK 2 Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is , there was a patent lacunae on the part of the learned Commissioner in deciding the First Appeal No.8/2001, as the learned Commissioner has taken into consideration the investigation papers, without getting them properly exhibited or proved. Secondly, the owner of the crane was different person while the crane operator was Bhagwan s/o Sopanrao Waghmare. They should have been arrayed to meet the challenge by the claimants, legal representatives of the deceased. Thirdly, the well is not in land Gut No. 403, as has been established by Cadestral Surveyor, but it is in Gut No. 205, whereas the petitioner has a share. According to Mr.Deshpande, the learned Counsel, entire liability could not have been saddled upon the petitioner. Passingly, the learned Counsel contended that the petitioner, being politically influenced person, he has been made a scape goat in the travel. 5) Mr.Rathi, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants pointed that the rightful claim of the claimants, legal representatives of the deceased, who was 25 years of age at the time of accident, has been successfully dragged by the petitioner, as he earlier filed Writ 3 Petition No.5745/2008, which was disposed of on 24.6.2009. Prior thereto, Writ Petition No.3967/2008 was moved also disposed of on 3rd July, 2008. The learned Counsel also pointed, the proper remedy was under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, to prefer an appeal, which the petitioner has failed to do so and hence neither review was maintainable nor the present writ petition, challenging the orders in review petition. 6) The scope, while deciding the review, has its limitations. The learned Judge, seized with the matter, was quite conscious of the legal situation and the arms, which he could stretch either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the claimants. The learned Judge has also dealt with the objection about reading or recording the evidence of the criminal case, as it could have been read as and for collateral purpose. The deceased certainly lost his precious life and the legal representatives, the claimants are wandering for justice. The rejection of review petition does not indicate any non-application of mind or mistake in factual matrix. Even if there is a mistake in considering the correct legal position, it is not open to the review court to re-address the issue. 4 7) In the result, no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/