1 review88-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.88 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3142 OF 2011 M/s.Mighty Engineers Developers and Contractors .. Petitioners (Orig.Respondent No.5) Versus Tuljabhavani Housing Development Pvt.Ltd. And Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Dinesh Shah with M.L.Kataria i/b. Lilani Shah & Co. for petitioners Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Sameer Vaidya for respondent No.1 Mr.Veera Shinde for respondent No.7 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 26th September 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard both sides. This is an application seeking review of the order passed on 4th July 2001. The review is sought by original respondent No.5, Mighty Engineers. 2] If the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner is read as a whole, it is apparent that it was made on the application of the Trustees. The Charity Commissioner has made a reference to the case of all parties before him and particularly that the bidders 2 review88-11.doc were unable to comply with the terms and conditions. 3] It is only the Charity Commissioner's observations which have been referred to by me while disposing of the petition which was filed by M/s.Tuljabhavani Developers. 4] To my mind, there is no error apparent on the face of record or any of the reasons for which a review under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is permissible. It is clear that once the property belonged to a trust and none of the bidders in whose favour the sale was sanctioned were able to abide by the terms and conditions imposed in the order of sanction, then, the Charity Commissioner was not obliged to consider the grievance of the trustees. In such circumstances, the order of which review is sought does not require any interference. Review petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)