mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 24 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2008 SMT. ANSUYA R. MITHANI .. .. PETITIONER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Vinod Shah, C.A. Of petitioner Smt. Ansuya R.Mithani Mr. A. S. Rao i/b Suresh Kumar for respondent CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 28th April, 2010 P.C. In this petition the petitioner has sought review of our order dated 17/2/06. By the said order, we have dismissed the review petition by a reasoned order. We have observed that though the Joint Secretary passed order on 13/4/99 confirming the confiscation of the seized gold with option to the petitioner’s husband to redeem the gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs, payment of duty and personal penalty, the petitioner did not utilize that opportunity. The petitioner’s case is that she approached the respondents in the year 2005. No explanation was offered by the counsel for the delay. Besides the petition was filed in January, 2008. In the circumstances, the petition was dismissed. 2. We have heard the constituted attorney of the petitioner at some length. Constituted attorney of the petitioner has submitted that there were several reasons on account of which the petition could not be filed earlier and it was the mistake of the advocate in not bringing the above facts to the notice of the court. There is no merit in the above contention because whatever may be the ground for delay in filing the writ petition, there is nothing on record to suggest that at any point of time, the option to pay redemption fine was exercised by the petitioner by paying the redemption fine. The constituted attorney has relied on judgment of this court to which one of us (J. P. Devadhar, J.) was a party in Writ Petition No. 2488 of 1998 decided on 3/12/2008. That decision is not applicable to the present case because, in that case, the assessee had specifically informed that he is filing appeal against the confiscation order and inspite of such intimation, during the pendency of the appeal, the gold was disposed off. In the present case no such intimation was given by the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the constituted attorney of the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. No ground is made out for the review of our order. Review Petition is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.)