1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.O.NO.948/2010 IN M.C.A.ST.No.12246/2010 IN W.P.No.5133/2007 Prabhakar Gajanan Khonde -VERSUS- Maharashtra Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned ASGI for respondent nos. 3 to 5. Contention is, review of order dated 03.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 5133/2007 is called for in view of the subsequent conduct of respondents in the matter. It is pointed out that this Court while disposing Writ Petition recorded a finding that there were no malafides. However, then this 2 Court directed respondent no.3 Union of India to take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks and thereafter respondent no.1 was called upon to take further decision, consequentially within further period of two weeks. As this decision was not taken, contempt petition was required to be filed. Notices were issued in that matter and thereafter in April, 2010 the applicant/petitioner received notice of order passed by the respondent no.1 in the matter. According to Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the applicant, this subsequent conduct which shows an intention to harass the petitioner adds to the belief of petitioner, and therefore, the finding of absence of malafides needs to be recalled. The petitioner /applicant retired in the year 2003 and hence, he is entitled to interest on belated payment. Shri Naik, learned Counsel as also Shri Mishra, learned ASGI are opposing the prayer for condonation of delay and also for review. They point out that subsequent conduct is not relevant for recalling the finding of absence of malafides recorded by this Court on 03.08.2009. It is further contended 3 that after appropriate decision was taken by respondent no.3 within stipulated period of two weeks. Respondent no.1 has taken a decision in favour of petitioner and it was communicated to him in March, 2010 itself. The finding of absence of malafides was reached by this Court on 03.08.2009 after appreciating the material then on record. The review is being sought not on the ground of material then in existence, but because of subsequent conduct. We fail to understand how this subsequent conduct has got any bearing on the said material which was then appreciated to record a finding of absence of malafide. The facts show that the respondent no.3 has communicated its decision to respondent no.1 vide letter dated 24.02.2010 and thereafter, respondent no.1 has taken a decision on 11.03.2010. In Contempt proceedings then pending, these developments have been noted and contempt proceedings are therefore, disposed of. If this delay was deliberate or then constituted harassment of applicant/petitioner, he could have insisted for appropriate relief in contempt 4 matter. The prayer for interest from the date of superannuation till this belated payment, cannot be made by seeking review of the order dated 03.08.2009. However, it is required to be noted that present Misc. Civil Application is filed after disposal of the contempt petition and hence, there is delay of 320 days. We therefore, do not find the delay deliberate. Delay is, therefore, condoned. However, in the light of the observations above, we do not find any case warranting interference in review jurisdiction. Prayer for review is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd