mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.110 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION LODGING NO.7 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2933 OF 2004 Union of India & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. L.N. Balerao & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V.S. Masurkar with Mrs. N.V. Masurkar, for the Petitioners Mr. S.P. Saxena, for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Against the judgment of this Court dated 18th August, 2006 in Writ Petition No.2949 of 2004 a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. That Special Leave Petition was withdrawn with liberty to move this Court to file Review Petition on 11th July, 2007. The Review was presented to this Court on 20th February, 2009 i.e. nearly after 588 days. Even if the time taken before the Supreme Court is excluded the Respondents are bound to explain the delay of 588 days. 2. An affidavit has been filed in support of the Motion by one S.K. S. Deol. The affidavit shows that the matter was referred to the Ministry of Law on 18th July, 2007 and referred to the Advocate for drafting the Review Petition on 22nd August, 2007. It is further mentioned that the post of local authority of the S.E. (Co-ord) W.R., Mumbai is vacant from 1st February, 2007 till date and the said office is being run on additional charge arrangement due to pre-occupation of original works. Considering that an S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court to contend that the documents were not available is itself unbelievable. The explanation even otherwise given does not amount to sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the light of that Notice of Motion dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)