1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.396 OF 2011. IN M.C.A. STAMP NO.3630 OF 2011 IN W.P. NO.5224 OF 2010(D) DR. SMT. ARCHANA VASANT PATIL AND OTHERS VS ABHAY SHALIGRAM GAJBHIYE & OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3354 OF 2010 M.P.S.C. VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. M. Gordey Advocate for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Samarth Advocate for Respondent-1. Shri M. J. Khan APP for respondent-2 State. Shri Abhay Sambre Adv. for respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 to 8 absent though served. Coram : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI,JJ. Date : 10th AUGUST 2011. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing of Misc. Civil Application for review of the common order passed in Writ Petition No.5224 of 2010 & Writ Petition No.3354 of 2010. 2. Admittedly, Writ Petition No.5224 of 2010 with Writ Petition No.3354 of 2010 was disposed of by the order of this Court passed on 10-12-2010. Said order was passed mostly on the representation that 2 issue and service of notice on the present applicants who were also the respondents in Writ Petition No.5224 of 2010, was not necessary. 3. Applicants represent that the order of remand prejudices them as the part of order of tribunal not granting relief against them is based on concession made by the original applicant before the Tribunal. 4. The original applicant before the Tribunal represented through Learned Advocate Mr. M. V. Samarth has disputed having made any concession voluntarily. However, it is a matter of record that concession was made and it is recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in its Judgment in para no.14. 5. The contention raised by the petitioners that they are affected by order of this Court, but they were not noticed and heard is borne on record. 6. In view of this, it is obvious that the petitioners have filed this application after knowing about the exparte order. 3 7. In view that the delay caused in filing of application for condonation of delay is duly explained duly and satisfactorily, the delay of 36 days caused in filing application for setting aside the exparte Judgment is condoned. 8. Parties shall bear own costs. Judge Judge |mule|