1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 101 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6884 of 2009 Kiroha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. R.S.Ghadge i/b. Mr. A.S.Desai for the appellant. Mr. V.P.Malvankar-A Panel Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Subhash Patil a/w. Mr. P.P.Chavan & Ravindra Chile for respondent no.2. Kavita Anchane i/b. M.V.Kini & co. for respondent no.3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ (IN CHAMBER) DATED:- JULY 07, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The review is sought essentially on the basis of document at page-8 Exhibit A. This is a communication sent by the Regional Office of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to the General Manager (Works) Kiroha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) dated 6th November, 1997. 2 We have perused the said document. In our opinion, the opinion already expressed by us in order order dated 27th August, 2009 does not warrant any departure considering the fact situation of the present case. We have already found that the controversy essentially pertains to contractual rights between the parties. In that view of the matter, Petitioner is free to take recourse to suitable remedy before the Civil Court for appropriate relief, if so advised. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to document at page-112 Exhibit BB which is a communication sent by the Area Manager of MIDC to the Petitioner company dated 8th October, 2007. According to the Petitioner, the time was extended on account of reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner. That would make no difference to the view we have already expressed in our earlier order. That does not warrant departure as has been observed by us earlier. The Petitioner is free to make representation to the Respondent for relaxing the premium amount payable on account of extension of time to complete the construction work on the site. If such representation is made, we hope and trust that the Respondent Corporation would consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law keeping in mind the plea taken by the Petitioner. 3 4. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)