1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . M.C.A. STAMP NO.3630 OF 2011 IN W.P. NO.5224 OF 2010(D) DR. SMT. ARCHANA VASANT PATIL AND OTHERS VS ABHAY SHALIGRAM GAJBHIYE & OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3354 OF 2010 M.P.S.C. VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. M. Gordey Advocate for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Samarth Advocate for Respondent-1. Shri M. J. Khan APP for respondent-2 State. Shri Abhay Sambre Adv. for respondent no.3. Coram : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI,JJ. Date : 10th AUGUST 2011. 1. This is an application for review in the nature of application for setting aside the exparte Judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5224 of 2010 and 3354 of 2010. 2. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitions were disposed of in motion hearing and before issuing notice to the present applicants and other unrepresented respondents. 2 3. The respondent no.1 in this application was the Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5224 of 2010, while MPSC was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3354 of 2010 in which one and the same final order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was under challenge. 4. The respondent No.1 is served in the present Misc. Civil Application. The respondent nos.2 & 3 in this application are also represented. 5. The respondent nos.4 to 8 were not served in both the writ petitions. These respondents are not served in this Misc. Civil Application, though they were served in application for condonation of delay. These respondents are formal party. 6. All learned Advocates urge that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent nos.2 to 8 if this Misc. Civil Application is heard without serving these respondents, as they will get hearing in the writ petition when and if re-opened and no prejudice to them will be ensued. 7. In support of present application, learned Advocate for the applicants has urged that the order 3 of remand prejudices them as the part of order of tribunal not granting relief against them is based on concession made by the original applicant before the Tribunal. 8. The original applicant before the Tribunal represented through Mr. M. V. Samarth has disputed having made any concession voluntarily. However, it is a matter of record that concession was made and it is recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in its Judgment in para no.14. 9. We are satisfied that considering the background namely the writ petition was disposed of without formal notice and hearing the applicants, and though present application is titled as 'review', it is in the nature of setting aside the exparte order and the concession made in favour of present applicants was not adjudicated. 10. It is a matter of record that the Judgment is exparte and also that this fact is not in dispute. 11. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are satisfied that the exparte order deserves to be recalled. 4 12. We, therefore, allow the Misc. Civil Application, and recall the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5224 of 2010 and restore this writ petition to the file at the stage of admission hearing and same course would follow in Writ Petition No. 3354 of 2010. 13. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Judge Judge |mule|