((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 95 OF 2007 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 11 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1318 OF 2006 The State of Mahaharashtra ... Petitioner Versus Raju Kakumal Rizwani and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. G.W. Mattows, A.G.P. for Petitioner State. None for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Both, Notice of Motion and the Review Petition are being disposed of by this common order. . It is the case of the Review Petitioner that they have received communication dated 18.2.2006 from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs which sets out that the appeal memo in respect of which Petition was filed was not received by the Ministry and was not available in the Ministry’s record. In the Petition, the Petitioners at Page 29 had annexed copy of the appeal Memo. The direction was issued by this court to the Chief Settlement Commissioner ((-2-)) for Compensation Pool Properties Cum Chief Custodian of Evacuee Property to dispose of the pending appeal according to law. . Considering the state of affairs of maintaining Government records, we could understand if the authority concerned could have asked the Respondent (Original Petitioner) to produce copy of the appeal and if thereafter, they are not satisfied about the filing of the appeal to move this court. Instead of that, the Review Petitioner has filed this Review Petition. Hence, there is no merit in the review Petition. Hence, Motion and Review Petition are accordingly dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)