1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8325 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.17101 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43 OF 2007 1) Pandya Nadya Gavit, Age 42 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o. Peda Pada, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 2) Kantilal Tetya Gavit, Age 40 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Pandharphali, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Applicants. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2) The Commissioner for Tribal Development, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3) Warden, Hostel for Tribal Student, At Post Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 2 4) The Principal/Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagzari, Run by Adivasi Seva Sahayak Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for applicants. Smt. R.R. Mane, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- With CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8326 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.16616 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43 OF 2007 * The Principal/Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagzari, Run by Adivasi Seva Sahayak Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Applicant. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3 2) The Commissioner for Tribal Development, Nashik Division, Nasik. 3) Warden, Hostel for Tribal Student, At Post Nagzari, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 4) Pandya Nadya Gavit, Age 42 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o. Peda Pada, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. 5) Kantilal Tetya Gavit, Age 40 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Pandharphali, Taluka Navapur, District Nandurbar. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Smt. R.R. Mane, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE: 17th AUGUST 2009 4 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2) Perused the applications. Considering the reasons given in the applications and after hearing submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, we find that the delay caused in filing review applications is satisfactorily explained. 3) The applications are allowed. Delay in filing review applications is condoned. Both the applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ca.8325.09