1 ra115.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11535 OF 2010 Shaikh Baba Faijoddin, Age: 29 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Gazipura, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Review Application is filed seeking review of our earlier order dated 02-05-2011 in Writ Petition No. 11535 of 2010. 2. The only ground taken in the Review 2 ra115.11 Application is in Paragraph - 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the review applicant that, while passing order under review this Court directed the applicant to vacate the premises, such order is erroneous on the face of record in view of the fact that, it is always open for the applicant to challenge the order in respect of cancellation of the agreement but this aspect is not considered by this Court. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the review applicant. The order under review makes it clear that, the learned A.G.P. appearing in the Writ Petition after taking instructions from the concerned Officer had made a statement that, the allotment is already cancelled as according to the Department, room in the administrative building cannot be given to any one. Therefore, this Court has not opined anything about cancellation of the agreement. 3 ra115.11 4. This Court has also observed in the order under review that, the prayer made in writ petition has become infructuous. This Court directed respondent No. 5 i.e. review applicant to vacate the premises within 7 days as per the order of the Executive Engineer. Accordingly, Writ Petition was disposed of. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the review applicant and also averments in the application for review, and keeping in mind the provisions of review, we find that, there is no substance in this Review Application. There is no any error apparent on the face of record so as to review our earlier order dated 02-05-2011 in Writ Petition No.11535 of 2010. Review Application stands rejected. [A.V. NIRGUE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11