1 ndm 904.rpw.212.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 212 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6826 OF 2010 Smt. Rohini Sanjay Gupta. Vs. Sidhivinayak Magasvargiya Mahila Bachat Gat and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.P.Kanuga i/b Mr. J.S.Chandani for the Petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Aiya i/b Mr. H.P.Vyas for Respondent No.1. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10th December, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 Review is sought of the order dated 18th October, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 6826 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed by the Review Petitioner for challenging the order dated 18th August, 2010 passed by the concerned Hon’ble Minister. By the order of this Court dated 18th October, 2010 of which Review is sought, the order dated 18th August, 2010, which was against the review Petitioner has been set aside with liberty to the 1st respondent to file an 2 application for review. 3 The main ground on which review is sought is that a fraud was played upon this Court by the 1st respondent by suppressing a material fact that there was a regular application for review dated 16th November, 2009 filed by the 1st respondent before the Honourable Minister. It was submitted that the order of this Court passed on 18th October, 2010 proceeds on the footing that there was no proper review application filed by the 1st respondent and therefore, while setting aside the order dated 18th August, 2010 passed in the review petition, a liberty has been granted to the 1st respondent to file an application for review. 4 As this controversy was raised, the record of the review petition filed before the State Government was called for. The record shows that there is an application dated 16th November, 2009 filed by the 1st respondent. As stated earlier, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 18th August, 2010. On the so-called application for review dated 16th November, 2009 three Court fee stamps of denomination of Rs.10/- each have been affixed, which are dated 24th August, 2010. There is no inward stamp or an endorsement of filing of any officer or clerk on the said application dated 16th November, 2009. Infact there is no endorsement of any kind on that application indicating that it was filed before 18th August, 2010. As stated earlier, the Court fee stamps on the said application are of the date 24th August, 2010. There is nothing on record to show that any order was passed on the said application dated 16th 3 November, 2009. There is a serious doubt whether the said application was on record when order dated 18th August, 2010 was passed. On the basis of perusal of the file, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the order dated 18th August, 2010 was passed by the Hon’ble Minister on the said application dated 16th November, 2009. 5 As pointed out earlier, the Review Petitioner is the Writ Petitioner. The order dated 18th August, 2010, which was against the Petitioner has been set aside by this Court by granting a liberty to the 1st respondent to file a proper application for review. 6 As noted earlier, on perusal of the record, it is not possible to accept that the order dated 18th August, 2010 was passed on the application dated 16th November, 2009. 7 Since the file is produced before the Court, it must be noted that there are letters of recommendation on record issued by different political leaders in favour of the persons who allegedly applied for review. 8 The order, which was against the Petitioner has been quashed and set aside by this Court by order passed on 18th October, 2010 of which a review has been sought. After having perused the file, I find that there is no ground for review of the order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by this Court. Hence, the review petition is rejected. 9 At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 Review Petitioner states that considering the manner in which review petition was earlier decided by the Honourable Minister and considering the facts that recommendations of political leaders have been taken on record, a direction be issued that the fresh review application which may be made by the 1st respondent should be heard by some other authority. The said direction cannot be issued in this review petition. However, it is always open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy for the said relief. [ A.S.OKA, J ]