IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.930 OF 2009 Mr. Suresh S/o. D. Kamble and another. ... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. S.K. Chaurasia i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2009 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The prayer made by the petitioners is that the order as passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cancelling allotment of plot to them be recalled and the allotment made in favour of private respondents in relation to Plot No.48 situated at Talegaon, Pune should be cancelled. 2. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts giving rise to the present writ petition in great detail particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.7643 of 2005 which came to be dismissed by order of the Division Bench dated 15th June, 2006. In this order, specific reference was made by the Bench to the letter dated 17th March, 2004 by which certain benefits were granted to the petitioners subject to deposit of earnest money within 90 days which he failed and the Bench held that the order dated 1st June, 2003 cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners was thus, for justifiable reasons. Thereafter the petitioners filed review petition being Review Petition No.165 of 2007 which also came to be dismissed wherein all the grounds averred as herein were taken by the petitioners and the Division Bench vide its order dated 2nd March, 2009 dismissed the review petition as well by noticing that even the fresh allottee had not been joined as party either in the writ petition or in the review petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners now contends that the present writ petition has been filed after impleading necessary party as party respondent and therefore, writ petition be allowed. Filing of Writ Petition or Review Petition just by adding or subtracting a party substantially challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of plot which in earlier writ petition was substantially considered and disallowed is impermissible in law. We are afraid that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain present writ petition. It is open to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy. 3. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.