{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5360 OF 2010 Hasrat Ali s/o Balam Ali Petitioner Versus The Union of India and another Respondents Mr.H.L.Chintalwar, advocate for petitioner Mr.M.N.Navandar, advocate for respondents. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.12.2009, passed in Review Petition No.9 of 2009 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the Review Petition filed by the present petitioner and the order dated 19.06.2009 thereby dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 2 Shri Chintalwar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the identity card which was issued to the petitioner when he was appointed as Commission Vendor. {2} 3 The Original Application has been dismissed on two grounds, (i) that there was delay of twelve years in approaching the learned Tribunal; and (ii) that the petitioner had failed to produce any documents to substantiate his claim that he was appointed by the Railway Authorities. 4 We have examined the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We notice no perversity in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the Review Petition. Likewise, no perversity could also be noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the Original Application. 5 Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp536010