1 Review Appln. No.47/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Review Application No.47 Of 2011 In Writ Petition No.9127 OF 2010 M/s Om Resorts. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, holding for Shri. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, i/by Shri. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 8th APRIL 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2 Review Appln. No.47/2011 2) The learned counsel Shri. R.R. Mantri appearing for the review petitioner submits that, the respondents - MIDC has committed a fraud on this Court in suppressing material documents from this Court. The entire original record was not produced before this Court while the writ petition was being heard. The learned counsel submitted that, the receipt dated 23-12-2009, which is at Exhibit "D" of the review petition, issued by the officers of the MIDC in respect of processing fee for plot No. AM-9/1 was suppressed from this Court. 3) It was further submitted that the review petitioner had filed application on line and had submitted required relevant documents for the purpose of consideration of his proposal for the said plot which was the subject plot bearing No.X-9/1 which was renumbered as AM-9/1. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the MIDC submitted that two applications were filed by the review petitioner. One on 3rd December 2009 and other on 7th December 2009. The application filed on 7th December 3 Review Appln. No.47/2011 2009 was in respect of Plot No. X-9/1. The counsel raised dispute in respect of Demand Draft issued by the Shirpur Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd Shirpur in favour of the review petitioner bearing No.005154. The counsel submitted that along with application filed by the petitioner in respect of Plot No.AM-9/1 necessary documents were not annexed including Project Report, map etc. In respect of the receipt of processing fees, the counsel submitted that the same was not available as some of the record was kept at the office at Nashik. The counsel does not dispute the receipt at Exhibit "D" of the review petition. It was submitted that the application of the petitioner was considered on merits and as the review petitioner's application for Plot No.AM-9/1 was not complete in all respects, the same was not considered. 5) The learned Senior Counsel Shri. P.M. Shah appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioner did not file required documents for claiming Plot No.AM-9/1. Except prayer clauses, which referred to Plot No.AM-9/1, in the memo of the writ petition there is no averment in respect of the claim for allotment of plot 4 Review Appln. No.47/2011 No.AM-9/1. The learned counsel further submitted that, the review petition is not maintainable. The counsel submitted that consequent to the order passed by this Court in writ petition dated 24-2-2011, possession of the subject plot has been handed over to respondent No.4 by execution of agreement between the parties. 6) We have considered the submissions advanced before us, perused the documents. The writ petition was considered on its merits. Considering the grounds raised in the review petition, they do not commend to us to exercise our jurisdiction in entertaining this review petition. We do not notice any glaring error apparent on the face of record or any sufficient reason for exercising our review jurisdiction. 7) The review petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl