1 rpw60.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.60 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2006 Shankar D.Poul .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Shankar D.Poul, petitioner in person present. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 5th April, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1103 of 2006. In that petition, the petitioner had impugned letters dated 8.8.2003, 11.2.2004, 17.3.2004, 8.12.2004 and 10.1.2005. 2. We have perused the order dated 5.4.2006. It appears from the said order that the petitioner had made representation dated 31.8.1974 and requested to revoke the order of reversion and consider the period from 31st August, 1974 to 25th August, 1976 as continuous service on the promotional post. All the representations were rejected and thereafter he filed original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. That application was also dismissed on merits. Since then the petitioner has filed several petitions in this court including the contempt petitions. The S 2 rpw60.07 petitioner in person submitted that so far he filed 23 petitions in this court for similar relief. This court in the order dated 5.4.2006, after quoting the different proceedings/petitions filed by the petitioner, in paragraphs 8 and 9 recorded thus: "8. Undaunted by failure to find favour with his same kind of argument, he has again preferred this writ petition and has tried to justify it. The crux of the matter is whether his service from 1.8.1975 to 25.3.1977 could be treated as continuous service in the cadre of promotional post namely, Junior Engineer. There is hardly any cogent reason to consider his such service as continuous period of service spent by him in the promotional post inasmuch as he, in fact, never worked on such post during the relevant period. It is explicit that he made first representation on 31st August, 1974. He was informed on 22nd July, 1982 that the period between 1st August, 1975 to 25th August, 1976 was being treated as the continuous service in the cadre of Junior Engineer but the earlier period was not treated as such. It appears that for the first time he approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. 546/1994. The Tribunal rejected his claim as it was hopelessly barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that mere repeated representations did not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner and his long drawn silence for more than 12 years was inexplicable. 9. It is not necessary to give details of all the litigations which the petitioner had filed in this court. Suffice it to say that his basic grievance remained the 3 rpw60.07 same and some-how or the other he wanted to coax the respondent to treat the relevant period as the service rendered in the promotional post. He appears to have absued legal process under various writ petitions including the present one. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has a tendency to file such petitions and continue to argue the same in-person though has exhausted all the remedies. Though the court has not saddled him with cost on the earlier occasion yet now his repeated endeavour to abuse the legal process has become intolerable. Not only that the court’s valuable time is unnecessarily lost in such unfounded litigation but that the respondent State is also required to incur a good deal of expenses without much substantial reason. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to impose exemplary cost of Rs.5000/- on the petitioner with a hope that he would not henceforth file any such petition.” As a matter of fact we also could have dismissed this review petition by imposing exemplary cost, however, having regard to his age we are not passing such order. In our opinion, no case for review is made out. Review petition is rejected. (M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)