IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.44 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.44 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.44 OF 2008 Sadbhav Engineering Limited )..Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Aarshad Hidayatulla Sr.Counsel, Mr.T. Ganethekran, Ms.M. Joshi & Mr.Ricab Chand for petitioners. Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mr.A.S.Rao & Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 24.01.2008. PC 1. An application for rectification was moved on the ground that the document dated 4.6.1999 signed by one Mr.P.M.Ganatra, the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India, was not considered while disposing of the appeal. The document reads as under :- " This is to certify that M/s.Sadbhav Engineering Limited is entrusted with work of widening to four lane including strengthening of existing 2 lane of NH8A (package-1) from samakhiyali (Km.306/000) to bhachau (Km.324/000) in Gujarat by N.H.A.1 the rader machine MG-330 is being : 2 : used and essential for surface dressing of the individual layers including sub base, granular sub base, wet mix macadam (All non bituminous) and also essential for spreading chips at above site, as per specifications of national highways authority of india." 2. In the order disposing off the application for rectification, learned Tribunal noted that for arriving at the finding on merits, they had considered the entire process of manufacture, technical books and literature on the subject as also opinions of the experts. Mere non reference to project director’s letter, in any case, would not have tillted the weight of evidence in favour of the appellant. In other words, it held that the finding recorded was based on technical books and other documents. The communication by the Project officer was considered but the Tribunal found that it could not have disturbed the finding recorded. Even otherwise we find that an officer senior to be the project officer had a different opinion in the matter. 3. Apart from that, we may note from the certificate itself that whereas first part of the : 3 : certificate says "is being used and essential" in respect of the part which is relevant for the purpose of the subject matter the only expression is "also essential". 4. Considering the above, it is not a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition rejected. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)