IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2010 SHRI. VITHAL RAGHUVIR PAI VERNECAR AND ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SMT. MARIA ANTONIO D'SOUZA (SINCE DEC.) THROUGH LR'S., ... Respondent Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurish Agni, Advocate for respondent nos.2,3, & 4. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 20th June, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Gaurish Agni, learned Advocate for respondent nos.2,3 & 4. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the Judgment and order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No.2/1997. 3. The Order dated 4.10.1990 was passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Tiswadi rejecting certain objections of the petitioners herein. The petitioners filed revision application before the Collector which was dismissed by the Collector by Judgment and Order dated 16.8.1996. Against the said Judgment and order, the petitioners herein preferred Mundkar Revision application no.2/1997 before Tribunal. 4. In memo of revision before Tribunal the petitioners contended that what was filed before the Collector was actually an appeal and not revision. However from the perusal of the impugned Judgment it appears that this point was not agitated before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal held that second revision to the Tribunal against an order passed by the Collector was not maintainable. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that revision filed before the Administrative Tribunal is maintainable in as much as although the petitioners had filed revision before the Collector in fact it was an appeal under section 24 and therefore Tribunal has erred in holding that revision preferred was not maintainable. Mr. Agni appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 has supported the impugned order. 5. As stated above, perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.7.2009 discloses that the point sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioners was not canvassed before the Tribunal although such a point was taken in the memo of revision. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has to be exercised sparingly as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. On this ground alone, writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. Needless to mention that dismissal of this Writ petition would not come in way of the petitioners from resorting to appropriate remedy as may be available in law. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn