IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 13 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 456 OF 2003 RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. .. PETITIONER Vs. The Chairman of Grocery Markets & Shops Board for Greater Bombay & Ors. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. J. P. Cama with M/s. Bodhanwala, Mr. Ajay Khaire, Ms. Prachi Athatre i/b M/s. M. S. Bodhanwala & Co. for the petitioner Mr. K. M. Naik with S. P. Salkar for R-1 & 2 Mr. Milind More AGP for R-3 & 4 Mr. Anand Grover for R-5. Mr. M. S. Topkar for R-6. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 12th March, 2010 P.C. In this review petition, review and recall of judgment and order pronounced by this court on 19/1/2010, whereby this court dismissed Writ Petition No. 456 of 2003, filed by the petitioner, is sought. 1. We have heard Mr. Cama learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Cama drew our attention to paragraph 19 of the judgment. In that paragraph it is observed that on behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the Grocery Markets and Shops Board for Greater Bombay (the Board) should have considered industry-cum-region formula, capacity of the employer to pay, cost of living, conditions of service in comparable concerns in the manner prescribed in clause 33 of the Scheme. That exercise was not conducted. It is further observed by this court that in this regard no specific challenge is raised in the petition. Mr. Cama submitted that this observation is incorrect. He submitted that though there is no reference to clause 33 of the Scheme in the petition, in ground D the petitioner has referred to conditions of service of comparable industry. In clause E the petitioner has averred the financial incapacity of the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed letter dated 28/2/2002 addressed by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra. In that letter reference is made to clauses 3 to 5 of the Scheme. Comparability is pleaded and it is stated that the Board has ignored the clause which requires the Board to consider prevalent conditions of service in comparable employments while modifying conditions of service. Mr. Cama submitted that, therefore, paragraph 15 contains an error apparent on record which necessiates recall or review of judgment dated 19/1/10. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no case is made out for review/recall and, therefore, the review petition must be dismissed. 3. In paragraph 15, this court has observed that there is no specific challenge raised in the petition regarding the Board having not considered industry-cum- region formula, capacity of the employer to pay, cost of living, conditions of service in comparable concerns etc. The word “specific challenge” are important. Admittedly in the petition there is no reference to clause 33 of the Scheme. In ground ‘D’ there is a reference to service conditions of workers in M/s. Roha Dychem Ltd. But there is no averment that prevalent conditions of service of comparable industries in the same region or local area are not taken into consideration in terms of clause 33 of the Scheme by the Board. A reference to relevant clauses in the annexure to the petition cannot obviate the need to raise a specific challenge. 4. Besides the petitioner is really aggrieved by the alleged illegal demands of the Board seeking to impose increase in Dearness Allowance and levy on the petitioner vide its letter quoted in paragraph 16 of the petition. The petitioner has made it clear that being aggrieved by the said letters the petitioner was approaching this court. The petitioner has prayed that the said demands be declared illegal. 5. The basic issue involved in this petition is about alleged illegal demand of “Dearness Allowance”. The petition centres round “Dearness Allowance”. Therefore, in the judgment dated 19/1/10, this court has used the words “there is no specific challenge” that the Board has no considered conditions of service in comparable concerns etc. It is not possible, therefore, to hold that there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the judgment dated 19/1/10. The petitioner has not made out any sufficient reason for review of the judgment dated 19/1/10. Hence the Review Petition is rejected. 6. Mr. Cama submitted that protection granted by the interim order which was continued by this court for six weeks be continued. We are, informed that the period for which protection was granted has expired. Hence there is no question of continuing the interim order. The prayer made by Mr. Cama is, therefore, rejected. 7. The review petition is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)