:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.133 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.133 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.133 OF 2008 IN IN IN REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2008 FROM FROM FROM ORDER ORDER ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.1704 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1704 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1704 OF 2002 Priyanka Priyanka Priyanka Kambli & Anr. Kambli & Anr. Kambli & Anr. ..Petitioners ..Petitioners ..Petitioners Vs. Vs. Vs. Brihan Brihan Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. ..Respondents Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. ..Respondents Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Prashant Mr.Prashant Mr.Prashant Uchil for the Petitioners. Uchil for the Petitioners. Uchil for the Petitioners. Mr.N.A.Shaikh Mr.N.A.Shaikh Mr.N.A.Shaikh for the Respondents. for the Respondents. for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 (At (At (At 2.30 in Chamber) 2.30 in Chamber) 2.30 in Chamber) P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Heard Heard Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the learned Counsel for the parties. By the learned Counsel for the parties. By this this this Notice of Motion, the Petitioners are seeking to Notice of Motion, the Petitioners are seeking to Notice of Motion, the Petitioners are seeking to condone condone condone 5 years and 5 months delay caused in filing 5 years and 5 months delay caused in filing 5 years and 5 months delay caused in filing the the the above Petition. We have perused the Affidavit in above Petition. We have perused the Affidavit in above Petition. We have perused the Affidavit in support support support of of of the Notice of Motion. We have also perused the Notice of Motion. We have also perused the Notice of Motion. We have also perused our our our order dated 1st October,2002. At the outset, it order dated 1st October,2002. At the outset, it order dated 1st October,2002. At the outset, it may may may be noted that the original Petition was filed by be noted that the original Petition was filed by be noted that the original Petition was filed by the the the 76 Petitioners, whereas the present Review 76 Petitioners, whereas the present Review 76 Petitioners, whereas the present Review Petition Petition Petition has been filed by only two Petitioners and has been filed by only two Petitioners and has been filed by only two Petitioners and other other other Petitioners are not even impleaded as the Petitioners are not even impleaded as the Petitioners are not even impleaded as the Respondents. Respondents. Respondents. The main grievance of the Petitioners is The main grievance of the Petitioners is The main grievance of the Petitioners is that that that their names were in the Select Cum Wait List of their names were in the Select Cum Wait List of their names were in the Select Cum Wait List of 337 337 337 candidates however, the Respondent Corporation had candidates however, the Respondent Corporation had candidates however, the Respondent Corporation had listed listed listed the names of only 126 candidates. the names of only 126 candidates. the names of only 126 candidates. :2: 2.2.2. In In In any event, the ground on which we had any event, the ground on which we had any event, the ground on which we had dismissed dismissed dismissed the the the Petition was, that on 19th January,2001, Petition was, that on 19th January,2001, Petition was, that on 19th January,2001, a ban was imposed on direct recruitment by ban was imposed on direct recruitment by ban was imposed on direct recruitment by Dy.Municipal Dy.Municipal Dy.Municipal Commissioner and on 20th June,2001, the Commissioner and on 20th June,2001, the Commissioner and on 20th June,2001, the Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner had issued a Circular about validity of had issued a Circular about validity of had issued a Circular about validity of waiting waiting waiting list for only one year and cancelled all those list for only one year and cancelled all those list for only one year and cancelled all those waiting waiting waiting lists which were for more than one year. lists which were for more than one year. lists which were for more than one year. 3.3.3. Under Under Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the the the case, we are not inclined to entertain the above case, we are not inclined to entertain the above case, we are not inclined to entertain the above Notice Notice Notice of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. 4.4.4. In In In view of the dismissal of the Notice of view of the dismissal of the Notice of view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Motion, Motion, the above Review Petition (L) No.21 of 2008 the above Review Petition (L) No.21 of 2008 the above Review Petition (L) No.21 of 2008 also also also stands dismissed. stands dismissed. stands dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)