1 ca15196.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15196 OF 2010 IN REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 32358 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5696 OF 2007 Shri. Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokardole, Age: 39 years, Occ: Education, R/o. Plot No.9, Shrikrishna Colony, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, the Secretary, Department of Information and Public Relation, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondent-State. Mr. A.R. Rathod, Advocate for Resp. No. 4 & 5. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,& A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Civil Application is filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 603 days in filing review application, seeking review of our order dated 16-02-2009 in Writ Petition No. 5696 of 2007. 2 ca15196.10 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant invited our attention to the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay and submitted that, on the said grounds the delay deserves to be condoned. He further submitted that, if favourable order is obtained from the Court by playing fraud and if such order is under challenge in Review, in that case, delay in filing the Review Application deserves to be condoned. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 and also in the case of Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of Gujrat and others reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 986. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the respondents obtained order 3 ca15196.10 from the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench Aurangabad, by suppressing the relevant and correct facts and by not producing any documents on record, therefore, application for condonation of delay in filing Review Application deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents would submit that, there is delay of 603 days in filing the review application and therefore, this Court may not entertain the application for condonation of delay, since no sufficient cause has been disclosed in the said application. 5. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Upon perusal of the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay, it is crystal clear that, none of the ground provides better particulars. Even grounds alleging fraud and suppression of documents and facts, 4 ca15196.10 taken by the applicant are without providing any particulars or specific instances. Therefore, averments made in the application for condonation of delay are general in nature. Therefore, on such averments no application for condonation of delay can be entertained, where there is inordinate delay of 603 days in filing review application. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, also perused the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by learned Counsel for the applicant, however, in the instant application, no better particulars or instances are given by the applicant alleging suppression of documents or playing fraud by the respondents. Therefore, on bare words or allegations of the applicant, no application for condonation of inordinate delay can be entertained. 7. On careful perusal of application for condonation of delay, we find that no sufficient 5 ca15196.10 cause has been disclosed. Therefore, Civil Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11