IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION NO. 146 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 146 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 146 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3873 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 3873 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 3873 OF 2005 Dhote Print Bind ] .. Petitioner Versus The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corpn. & ors.] .. Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. Garge for the respondent No.1. Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b M/s.Little & Co. for the respondent No.2. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the respondents No.3 to 6. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 11TH JULY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Writ Petition was disposed on the point of delay and laches which, it was held by the Division Bench, cannot be condoned. Though at that time, the aspect whether the petitioner can avail of the remedy available under Article 14 of the Constitution of India was also considered, the matter has not been rejected on that count. The Petition has solely been rejected on : 2 : the point of delay. 3. The Notification of 1991 has been challenged in the year 2005. The petitioner was aware of the fact that consequent upon the said Notification, the petitioner will have to pay taxes etc. as per the Notification. Therefore, immediately in the year 1991 itself, the petitioner should have approached this court for further reliefs. No explanation is coming forward in that regard. That the petitioner was hopeful of the Government lifting the said Notification of 1991 is an after thought. Therefore, the earlier Division Bench rightly held that the petition suffers from delay and latches. 4. While reviewing the matter, it is not expected of the court to sit in appeal and reconsider the whole matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue the matter as if the petitioner was appearing before this court for the first time and/or as if this court is sitting in Appeal over the order in review. So far as the aspect of delay and laches is considered, no proper challenge is made out in the Review Petition. 5. The Review Petition is without any merit and it is, accordingly, rejected. : 3 : Sd/- Sd/- [SMT.NISHITA [SMT.NISHITA [SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.] MHATRE, J.] MHATRE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]