1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2007 Shri Valiba Yadav Dhakne & Ors. ..Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2007 Shri Yadav Ganu Dhakne & Ors. ..Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.J.Ahuja for applicants. Ms.Geeta Mulekar for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 23, 2007. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2007. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2007. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I am in agreement with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent-State that this revision application is ill-advised, as is filed against the order dated 16th October, 2006. The order, which has been passed by the authority was on 5th February, 2002. There is no remedy of review before the said authority. The fact that the 2 applicants made representation, which has now been rejected by the order dated 16th October, 2006 will not revive limitation for filing of application. In fact, the applicants were obliged to challenge the order passed by the authority dated 5th February, 2002 by way of revision application. Accordingly, these revision applications will have to be dismissed. Hence dismissed. 3. At this stage, counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants may be allowed to withdraw these revision applications instead of dismissing the same, with liberty to the applicants to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be available. In the circumstances, these revision applications are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. It is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion that the applicants can take recourse to some other remedy, instead of revision applications as provided by the statute.