1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 43 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 1992 Irant s/o Bhujangrao Wadikar and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This review petition is filed for review of the order dated 7.1.2010 passed in writ petition No. 83 of 1992. 2 Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and A.G.P. for the respondents. 3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while hearing and deciding the writ petition No.83 of 1992, legality of order dated 2 20.11.1990, passed by the Additonal Commissioner in Case No. 1978/ICH/R/941 has not been examined by this court though the averments and prayer to that effect were made in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners failed to bring to the notice of this Court unreported judgment of this Court dated 4.6.2008, delivered in writ petition No. 2399 of 1990 and other connected matters having direct bearing on the point involved in writ petition. According to counsel for the petitioners, since this judgment is not reported, it was not noticed by him. Therefore, it was not brought to the notice of this Court. He further submits that even judgment in the case of Fatima w/o Kasam Saheb Bagwan (since deceased) Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 142, was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that this Court may review its earlier order dated 7.1.2010 passed in writ petition No. 83 of 1992. Learned A.G.P. vehemently opposed the prayer in the review petition. 4 After hearing counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents, in my opinion, the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 needs to be reviewed. It is true that there are averments in the petition questioning the legality of the order dated 20.11.1990 passed by the Additonal Commissioner and to that effect the prayer is also made. Secondly, certain judgments which are having direct bearing on the point involved in the writ petition, were not brought to 3 the notice of this Court. In my opinion, for afore stated two reasons, the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 in writ petition No. 83 of 1992 is required to be recalled. In the result, the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 delivered in writ petition No. 83 of 1992 is recalled and the writ petition No. 83 of 1992 is restored to its original position. 5 Review petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and disposed of. Record which is summoned be sent to the concerned authority forthwith. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/