1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 2316 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 1681 of 2006 ( Anil D. Katariya and others -: versus :- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and another ) With Civil Application No. 2317 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2006(D) ( Sheikh Samir Shaikh and others ..vs.. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for the petitioners/applicants, Mr. A.G. Mujumdar, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2010. 1. The applications are filed by original petitioners pointing out the order passed by the Division Bench on 9th July, 2009. Said order reads as under :- “ Learned counsel for the appellants states that the point pertaining to Section 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act though raised in the petition has not been dealt with in the judgment in appeal. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach learned Single Judge again. The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.” 2. In view of liberty granted by the Division Bench, Mr. Phadnis, Advocate contends that the issue pertaining to 2 Section 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 needs to be considered again. 3. The learned AGP, on the other hand, invites my attention to opening lines in paragraph 4 of the Judgment dated 5-1-2009 delivered by me to urge that said point was not pressed into service before this Court and this Court has recorded accordingly. He, therefore, contends that present applications on the strength of liberty as granted are misconceived. 4. It is apparent that the point was not pressed before this Court and hence, while delivering the judgment this Court was not called upon to consider it. The Division Bench of this Court has not set aside the judgment challenged before it in L.P.A. and has only permitted the present petitioners/applicants to withdraw their L.P.A. with liberty as sought for. Thus the question whether the matter can be re-heard on such issue is open before this Court. The judgment of this Court is not set aside and hence, this Court cannot hear the parties unless and until a case for review is made out. Applications as filed are not for review. In any case, the ground as raised is also not sufficient to review that judgment. The applications are, therefore, misconceived, same are accordingly rejected. JUDGE adgokar