1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3922 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.3922 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.3922 OF 2004 Mr. Anant Laxman Nikam ...Petitioners Mr. Anant Laxman Nikam ...Petitioners Mr. Anant Laxman Nikam ...Petitioners Vs. Vs. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- The Petitioner present in person The Petitioner present in person The Petitioner present in person CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER , 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner has filed the Application dated . The Petitioner has filed the Application dated . The Petitioner has filed the Application dated 18th November 2005, which is in Marathi. However, the 18th November 2005, which is in Marathi. However, the 18th November 2005, which is in Marathi. However, the roznama shows that on 5th July 2005 the learned Bench roznama shows that on 5th July 2005 the learned Bench roznama shows that on 5th July 2005 the learned Bench of this Court observed that Writ Petition was of this Court observed that Writ Petition was of this Court observed that Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 3rd May 2005. It is again dismissed by order dated 3rd May 2005. It is again dismissed by order dated 3rd May 2005. It is again observed in that order that though the application was observed in that order that though the application was observed in that order that though the application was rejected, it also decided the application. rejected, it also decided the application. rejected, it also decided the application. Considering that the present application, is not Considering that the present application, is not Considering that the present application, is not maintainable. The Petitioner is entitled to file maintainable. The Petitioner is entitled to file maintainable. The Petitioner is entitled to file review application if maintainable. review application if maintainable. review application if maintainable. . With the above observation, application . With the above observation, application . With the above observation, application disposed of. disposed of. disposed of. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 2