IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.55 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.473 OF 2008 Tirupati Mallesh Gadaria & Anr. ...Review Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Veena Thadani with Mr.Vishal Thadani for Review Petitioners. Mr.Shekhar Ingawle, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 15, 2008. DECEMBER 15, 2008. DECEMBER 15, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Review Petition is filed in view of the liberty given by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th August 2008 in Appeal No.315 of 2008. It is noticed that the principal argument in : 2 : the said Appeal was that the Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition for admission had failed even to advert to the argument canvassed at the time of admission of the Petition. That contention was taken on the basis of assertion made in the affidavit of the concerned Advocate. 3. When the matter was brought before me by way of present Review Petition, after hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the records, I recorded my prima facie opinion in order dated 11th November 2008 that the stand taken by the Advocate in Paragraph 2 of his affidavit was incorrect, if not false and dishonest. On the basis of the said finding, show cause notice was issued to the Advocate, who in turn filed three affidavits before me and has eventually expressed remorse and assured the Court that he would conduct himself in professional and ethical manner in future and abide by the discipline and etiquettes of his profession. On the basis of the said affidavit, show cause notice issued against the said Advocate has been discharged. : 3 : 4. In the circumstances, this Review Petition would necessarily proceed on grounds other than the said ground which was urged before the Appellate Bench of this Court on the basis of the assertion of the Advocate-as the same is unavailable to the Petitioners in view of the subsequent affidavits filed by the same Advocate before me. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, there are other two grounds for which this Court should entertain the present Review Petition. It is submitted that the fact that the competent Authority has taken into account instances which are not referred to in the original show cause notice is indisputable. Besides, the first Authority failed to accommodate the Petitioners and showed haste in proceeding with the hearing of the matter, which has resulted in infraction of principles of natural justice qua the Petitioners. This argument clearly overlooks that no such grievance was made before the Appellate Authority during the course of argument. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were represented by able Advocate before Appellate Authority. The : 4 : Appellate Authority has articulated the broad arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners in Paragraph 5 of its order. Assuming that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the arguments under consideration and the grievance of the Petitioners as made, in that case, the Petitioners were expected to specifically make that grievance in the Writ Petition itself. No such grievance has been made in the Writ Petition. General grounds are taken to which my attention is invited being Paragraph (d) and grounds 3 till ground 6. Even if the said Paragraph and the grounds are read carefully and as a whole, there is no specific grievance regarding the fact that the argument of extraneous material taken into account by the competent Authority and/or having decided the matter in haste was canvassed before the Appellate Authority and not adverted to by it in the Judgment. In my opinion, since the Petitioners failed to specifically raise the said argument before the Appellate Authority nor have asserted in the Writ Petition that grievance was specifically made before the Appellate Authority who in turn overlooked the same, it is not open for the : 5 : Petitioners for the first time to agitate the said argument in Review Petition. Besides, I find force in the argument of the learned A.P.P. that the three instances referred to in paragraph 3 of the order of the competent Authority are not the basis on which the final action has been taken against the Petitioners. The action taken against the Petitioners is on the finding of breaches committed by the Petitioners referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and the fact that the Petitioners conceded before the Authority about the violation of license condition committed by them in relation to instances referred to in Paragraph 3. 6. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the correct reading of Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the competent Authority is that the Petitioners conceded before the Authority to consider the violation committed by the Petitioners in relation to the instances referred to in Paragraph 3. In the first place, the reading of contents of Paragraph 3, in my view, plainly means that at the time of hearing, the representative of the Petitioners herein was apprised about the : 6 : breaches committed by the Petitioners even during the pendency of action, when the representative submitted that the matter be considered in the context of the said offences. The fact so recorded by the competent Authority is not specifically assailed and that plea of the representative would bind the Petitioners. Thus understood, it is not a case of extraneous material considered by the Authority while examining the stand of the Petitioners. 7. Besides, the grievance made by the Petitioners that no fair opportunity was offered to the Petitioners at the time of hearing is also without any substance as the Petitioners were duly represented by their Advocate before the Appellate Authority. As aforesaid, no such specific grievance has been made in the Writ Petition that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the grievance although it was argued during the course of arguments before it. Accordingly, no case for review is made out. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.