IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7754 OF 2008 Shri Uttam Sambhaji Shinde & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.Nitin Mulye for Petitioners. Ms.Lalita Panchakshari for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 27, 2009. 27, 2009. 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition should follow the same result as per the order passed today in companion Writ Petition No.7751 of 2008, inasmuch as it is noticed from the order impugned in the present Petition that the Petitioners in the present case adopted the same arguments which were canvassed in the companion matter. The lower Court proceeded to : 2 : decide the present matter on that basis. However, according to the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners before this Court, it is contended that specific grievance was made before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the same logic cannot be applied to the present case as only the issue raised by the Petitioners that the premises occupied by the Petitioners are situated on private property and therefore is not a public premises ought to be decided in the first place one way or the other. However, even on close reading of the two orders passed by the lower Courts which are impugned in the present Petition, it is not possible to discern that such argument was canvassed before the said Court. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the Respondents, the Appellate Court in Paragraph 11 has proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners even in the present case has not disputed that the premises in respect of which impugned notice was issued by the Estate Officer was a public premises. If that was the basis on which the matter proceeded, the question of entertaining the : 3 : grievance of the Petitioners now raised before this Court for the first time cannot be countenanced. 3. Counsel for the Petitioners, however, submits that the fact recorded in Paragraph 11 of the impugned order is incorrect. Such grievance cannot be made in Appeal or Writ Petition filed before the superior Court. It is well established position that grievance regarding fact recorded in the Court proceedings of the subordinate Court should be made only before the same Court and not before the superior Court (see State of Maharashtra (see State of Maharashtra (see State of Maharashtra v.v.v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak - AIR 1982 SC 1249). Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak - AIR 1982 SC 1249). Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak - AIR 1982 SC 1249). 4. Realising this position, Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in that case, the Petitioners be permitted to approach the Appellate Court for speaking to the Minutes with regard to the aforesaid fact recorded in the impugned order. He submits that the Petitioners be allowed to withdraw this Petition with liberty to approach afresh, keeping all questions open after appropriate order is passed by the Appellate Court on the proposed application for speaking to the : 4 : Minutes of order dated 6th October 2008. : 5 : 5. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.