IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (LODG.) NO.22 OF 2005 IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1832 of 200 PETITION NO.1832 of 200 PETITION NO.1832 of 2004 Union of India & Anr.............Petitioners Versus Kedarchand Agarwal & Ors........Respondents Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Review Petitioners Mr. Mohan Bir Singh for Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 25th April,2005 : 25th April,2005 : 25th April,2005 . By the present Review Application the original Respondents, who are the Review Applicants seek review of the order dated 10th March, 2005 relying on the purported policy decision dated 6th January, 1992 of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) signed by the Executive Director, Traffic Commercial (G), Railway Board. It is submitted, based upon that the decision taken was by the Executive Director, Traffic Commercial (G) Railway Board. The earlier directions of this Court was to the same Official and consequently the order suffers from an error apparent which requires to be reviewed. We asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the Railway Board has delegated its powers in favour of the Executive Director, Traffic Commercial (G), Railway Board and if so to produce the resolution whereby the Board has delegated such powers. Merely because the Railway Board has been sued through the Executive Director, Traffic Commercial (G) does not mean that the Writ of this Court was to that official to decide the issue. Direction was to the Railway Board to decide the issue. In our view, therefore, in the absence of producing the delegation of power no interference called for. Review Petition rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.) (S.P. (S.P. (S.P. KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.)