1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CAO NO.906/2011 IN MCA ST. NO.11457/2011 (FOR REVIEW) IN WP NO.3883/2010 (D) [The State of Maharashtra and others .vrs. Kazi Akiloddin Sujaoddin] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 20, 2011. Heard Shri A.G. Mujumdar, learned AGP for the applicants/original respondents in Writ Petition, who are seeking review and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant/original petitioner. By this application, the prayer is to condone the delay of 238 days in filing MCA for review. Learned AGP points out that after order dated 5.10.2010 was pronounced, Law and Judiciary Department was approached but then because of negative legal opinion, then Law and Judiciary Department returned the proposal. The matter was thereafter re-examined and the opinion/consent from 2 the Secretary as also opinion from the Collector was obtained. The Collector opined in favour of challenge, while the consent of Mantralaya is still awaiting. In the meanwhile, successful petitioner filed contempt petition and after receipt of notices of contempt, it was further noticed that judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon in order dated 5.10.2010 was not applicable. Therefore, the review has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay. Advocate Chandurkar is strongly opposing the prayer for condonation. According to him, the first communication on record in this respect is dated 18.6.2011. He points out that from 5.10.2010 till 18.6.2011 no steps are demonstrated to have been taken. According to him, application as filed, is vague and relevant dates on which Law and Judiciary Department was approached and then opinions are taken are not disclosed. Learned AGP informed that it is policy decision uniformally followed by the State Government that in such matters when appeals are pending, enhanced amount of compensation is not released. We find that as per order of which review is sought, the petitioner is entitled to amount of Rs. 87,83,763/- as compensation. He further attempts to demonstrate that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court 3 in the case of State of Maharashtra and others .vrs. Maimum Banu and others, 2003 (7) SCC 448 is not applicable. Advocate Shri Chandurkar is attempting to demonstrate that the said judgment is applicable. We are not inclined to go into the merits at this stage. We do not see any malafides on the part of the State Government. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay. However, the original petitioner/non-applicant is compensated by directing the applicants to pay to him costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If costs are so paid, delay shall stand condoned. In that event, office shall register review application and place it for further consideration. Steno copy is allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande