1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Review Petition No.98 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.3096 of 1997 Sabu Tipanna Gunapur Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.D.V.Gangal for petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,JJ. August 10, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Gangal, the learned counsel for the review petitioner who had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3096 of 1997. The said petition was filed on or about 19/6/1997 challenging the order of removal from service passed on 2/3/1977 by the competent authority. Writ Petition No.3096 of 1997 was admitted and directed to be heard with Writ Petition No.4176 of 1996, as per the order passed by this Court on 31/7/1997. The said petition came to be dismissed as per the order dated 27/4/2006 and hence this review petition. 2 2. While dismissing Writ Petition No.3096 of 1997 this Court referred to the decisions in the case of Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898], R.S. Makashi & ors. Vs. I.M. Menon & ors. [AIR 1982 SC 101] and Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. [AIR 1974 SC 259] and held that even when a delay of 3 to 10 years was found to be uncondonable in entertaining a writ petition, there was no case made out to entertain a challenge to the order of termination dated 2/3/1977 by filing a petition after twenty years. This Court also noted that the connected petition i.e. Writ Petition No.4176 of 1996 was also dismissed by this Court on 15/12/2003 and on the ground of inordinate delay which was not satisfactorily explained and by making the same analogy applicable, the petition was dismissed. This Court also noted that the service record would not be available after a long time of twenty years to defend the challenge raised in the petition against the order of termination. 3. If the petitioner felt that our judgment dated 27/4/2006 was erroneous or illegal, his remedy was somewhere else and 3 the view taken in dismissing the petition on the ground stated hereinabove cannot be a subject matter of review by us. 4. Hence the review petition is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)