1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.773/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3676/1995 (Decided) Sayeed Jamiluddin Syed Shafiuddin ...Versus... The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Bombay and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.V. Palshikar, Adv. for applicant] [Smt. K.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respdt. Nos.1 & 2] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 11.01.2008 Heard Shri Palshikar, learned Counsel for the applicant/review petitioner and Smt. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner argued that as a matter of fact the review petitioner is entitled to salary for a period of five years, which was required to be adjudicated in the writ petition, which came to be dismissed as infructuous on the statement made by the then Counsel appearing for the review petitioner in the 2 original writ petition. He thus submits that the petition was thus not rendered infructuous and the said statement that was made was wrong. According to him, this works out serious injustice to his client and it would be appropriate to decide the controversy one way or the other on merits rather than holding the writ petition as infructuous. Smt. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposing the submissions urged that there is no ground for review. Seen the Misc. Civil Application for review as well as impugned order. It does not appear that there was anything on record or any instruction in writing to the then Counsel for the petitioner to inform this Court that the petition was rendered infructuous. It appears that the review petitioner may become entitled to some relief in the event judgment of the Tribunal impugned is interfered with in the original writ petition. The error therefore, appears to be apparent on the face of record, which was committed on the basis of statement made by the then Counsel for the petitioner. In view of this, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the review petitioner is allowed to prosecute his petition on merits. Hence, the following order. Misc. Civil Application is allowed. The impugned 3 order dated 13.6.2007 made by this Court is set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause of this Misc. Civil Application. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. JUDGE ssw