-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7141 of 2009 Smt. Nilima Dhaigude. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. P. M. Mokashi for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardoz, AGP for the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 – State. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : August 17, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. It appears from paragraph no. 7 of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) that the parties have not disputed that the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is very essential and mandatory in connection with both the transfer orders. Now the learned counsel is trying to make out a case that there was no such pleading to that effect and no such concession was given by the advocate or party before the MAT. This aspect cannot be scrutinised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of -: 2 :- India. We go by the record and we find that the MAT has recorded the concession of the parties. If the Petitioner wants to resile from the concession, or to contend that no such concession was given and it is wrongly recorded by the MAT, the Petitioner may approach the MAT either for withdrawal of the concession or correcting the record that no such concession was given by the Petitioner before the MAT. Whether to file such an application or not is the choice of the Petitioner. However, if the Petitioner desires to file such an application, it shall be preferred within a period of two weeks from today. 2.. With these observations, the above petition is disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)