1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1297 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.3868 of 2007 (Decided) (Gopal Kashinathrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 6th October, 2008 This is an application for review of order dated 30-10-2007 passed by this Court disposing of Writ Petition No.3868 of 2007 with the following observation : “Since the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not show any requirement of law that the petitioner should have been given hearing in such proceedings, the petitioner's grievance is illusory and, therefore, cannot be entertained.” The learned counsel for the applicant states that this observation was not correct and that the matter is in fact squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.4878 of 1992 decided on 22-4-1993. She placed reliance on para 4 of the said judgment, which reads as under : 2 “Despite this order being passed, the 4th respondent Jt. Registrar has now come to the conclusion that the appeal is competent against an order passed under Section 9 of the said Act. It was tried to be contended on behalf of the respondent 5 that the order at Exh.'A' can not be treated as the one under Section 9, but could possibly be under Section 4 of the Act. Assuming that to be so, even an order under Section 4 is appealable under sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act. In either case, it was not open to the 4th respondent Jt. Registrar to dispute the maintainability of the Appeal in the light of the order passed by this Court on 9/10/1992 in Writ Petition No.1225/1992. Similarly, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the background of the litigation, in my view, interests of justice require that the impugned order at Exh.'A' ought to have been stayed.” A further comment is unnecessary. The observation by this Court in order dated 30-10-2007 is altogether different, whereas what is observed in the order dated 22-4-1993 is different. The application for review is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE Lanjewar