1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.353/2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION F. NO.2956/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.319/2011 (D) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through its Regional Officer ...Versus... Sunil s/o Kamlakar Salve and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Adv. for applicant] [Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respdt. Nos.2 & 3] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29.04.2011. This review petition has been filed in the matter of order made by this Court on 22.3.2011 in Civil Application F. No.2956/2010 in First Appeal No.319/2011. In support of the review petition, learned Counsel for the review petitioner invited my attention to the facts and grounds raised in paragraph Nos.3 to 10 of this review petition and argued that the order is required to be reviewed because in a similar appeal, namely First Appeal No.6/2011 delay of equal number of days, namely 820 days was condoned by this Court and the appeal has also admitted. According to him, therefore, it would be appropriate to review the impugned order. 2 He then argued that the review petitioner has no grievance whatsoever in relation to the order made by this Court imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- and also identifying the concerned responsible officers from whom the cost should be recovered. However, according to him, the reasons given in the original application for condonation of delay and the fresh reasons given in the present review petition are such that the delay is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. I have gone through the order dated 22.3.2011 sought to be reviewed. I have also gone through the application for condonation of delay that was dismissed by the said order i.e. Civil Application F. No.2956/2010 and the averments made in the present review petition. Submission about the condonation of delay in respect of other First Appeal No.6/2011 is wholly misconceived in the first place. Perusal of the record shows that Civil Application F. No.2381/2010 in First Appeal No.6/2011 was not at all contested inasmuch as none appeared for respondent No.1, though served and it is in that background the Court condoned the delay. For convenience, it is better to reproduce the said order, condoning the delay. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.1, though served. 3 Hence, for the reasons stated in the civil application, the prayer made in the civil application is granted. The civil application is allowed and disposed of. Perusal of the above order clearly shows that none appeared or contested the application for condonation of delay for the contesting respondent No.1 in that appeal. In the instant case, however, application for condonation of delay has been hotly contested and a detailed affidavit-in-reply was filed which was not at all countered by the review petitioner. In the reply, several serious circumstances about conduct of the appellant/Corporation were pointed out about which a reference has been made by me in the order under review. This is thus a distinguishing feature. Perusal of the averments in this review petition do not at all improve the situation. The reasons given in this review petition are almost the same like the one given in the application for condonation of delay and at any rate these reasons do not convey anything concrete to satisfy the mind of this Court for considering the condonation of delay of 820 days particularly because this Court found that the claimants and the appellant/Corporation were hand in glove in siphoning out the public money. The fresh reasons 4 given in the review petition being vague and do not carry the matter any further, I do not find any substance in those grounds. It is not in dispute that the appellant allowed the claimants to withdraw the entire amount without any security. If really it wanted to file appeal before this Court, the same would not have been filed after one year and three months from the date of withdrawal of the entire amount. Thus, the so-called concern shown by the appellant towards public money is nothing but shading crocodile tears. There is no substance in this review petition. Review petition is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw