*1* wp.344.11.913.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.344 OF 2011 Bajrang B. Pawar and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Sunil D. Dubal and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Vaibhav Patankar, for the Petitioners. Mr.Vikas M. Mali, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 When this Writ Petition was placed for admission, it was pointed out on behalf of the Respondents by Mr.Mali that both, the Petitioner No.2 (Vitthal Pawar) and the Petitioner No.6 (Dattatray Pawar), have expired. It is stated that they are also Applicants before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in RTS/Sangli/50/2006. This was stated to be the revision application preferred against the order of the Additional Collector dated 20.01.2006. This revision application was filed on 15.02.2006. 2 When this revision application was placed before the Additional Commissioner, he noticed that there is non compliance with the basic procedural rules. He has observed that the revision application has not been signed either by the Applicants or their Advocate. Even the Vakalatnama has not been signed by them or the Advocate. It is stated that this revision application was handed over/filed personally in the Commissioner’s office and there is acknowledgment. *2* wp.344.11.913.sxw 3 Even before this Court, the verification has been done by Bajrang Balu Pawar. He has not stated that this verification is on behalf of all Petitioners. Even in this case, the Vakalatnama shows the same name. When the Petitioner No.2 and the Petitioner No.6 have expired on 07.11.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively, why the revision application proceeded before the Additional Commissioner till 31.05.2010 has not been clarified. 4 In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge at the instance of the Petitioners herein. Even if all procedural rules are directory in nature and intended to aid a court or authority in rendering justice, yet, complete non-adherence thereto even after several opportunities have been given to do so, cannot be condoned in all cases. In these circumstances, while dismissing this Writ Petition, it is clarified that it would be open for the Petitioners to file a fresh application before the Additional Commissioner, Pune with complete details and comply with the procedural rules. If such an application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Additional Commissioner to then consider it in accordance with law. Needless to state that all contentions of both sides with regard to the delay, maintainability and merits are kept open. 5 The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)