1 WP8225.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8225 OF 2010 Shri Hindurao V. Barge ... Petitioner v/s Government of India & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai with G. Hariharan i/by Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: 1ST AUGUST, 2011 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of both parties. Heard counsel for both parties. 2. By this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Ministry of Law and Justice as also the order dated 3.6.2010 passed in Review Application No.5(3119)/08-NC, by the competent authority, for the ground on which we are disposing of this petition. We do not 2 WP8225.10 think it necessary to go through the judgments cited in that behalf. We place on record the bare stand taken by the senior counsel appearing for respondents that from the order passed by the review authority it appears that the petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard. Besides, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded except the operative order. In the circumstances, we partly allow this writ petition by setting aside the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the competent authority in Review Application No. 5(3119)/08-NC relegating the parties to appear before the review authority who in turn shall decide the review application afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity to the petitioner. Besides, the review authority shall examine the contentions raised by the petitioner before it and record its reasons for rejecting or allowing the same as the case may be. All questions raised in the present petition and that may arise for consideration in review application are left open. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the above arrangement is acceptable to the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition on the above terms. 4. The authority shall decide the restored review 3 WP8225.10 application as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from today. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 4 WP8225.10