1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13757 OF 2010 IN REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.14424 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5474 OF 2003 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Shri. R.V. Dasalkar Advocate h/f. Shri. U.S. Malte Advocate for Applicant. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. In filing the Review Petition, there is delay of 2307 days. The Review Petition is filed in respect of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: A.P. SHAH AND A.B. NAIK, JJ.) dated 12th December, 2003 in Writ 2 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Petition No.5474 of 2003. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that under the Right to Information Act, the Applicant sought certain information and as the Applicant had undergone angioplasty and heart operation, delay occurred in filing the Review Petition. On merits, the Applicant submits that though he accepts that he tendered resignation on 20th April, 1993, it is now revealed that said resignation was accepted on 22nd September, 1997. 3. We have considered the grounds raised in the Application for condonation of delay and Review Petition. We have perused the order under review. We are not convinced to condone such inordinate delay and review the order on merits. The Review Petition does not raise grounds which are sufficient to exercise our 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders jurisdiction in this Review Petition. Both the Applications i.e. the Civil Application for condonation of delay and the Review Petition, are dismissed. [K.K. TATED,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/OCT10/ca13757.10