1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 87 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1457 OF 2004 Devtaprasad Babulnath Upadhyay ..... ..... Petitioner. Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ..... ....... Respondent. Mr. B. P. Pande for the Petitioner. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. An order passed by this Court as early as on 7th June, 2006 is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the operation of the impugned order was not considered. The order reads as under: "1. Heard Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar, the counsel for the petitioner. We perused the notice under Section 314 of the M.M.C. Act. It appears that in response to the notice, reply was filed by the petitioner along with document. The petitioner, in support of the reply, relied upon four documents viz., (1) Ration Card dated 27th May, 1967, (2) Election Identity Card dated 16th January, 1995, (3) Telephone Bill dated 8th August, 2003 and (4) Electricity Bill of December, 2003. None of the documents prove that the subject temple is authorized. As a matter of fact, the temple is situated within the sanctioned road line and has to be treated as 2 unauthorized temple. The authority has passed a speaking order that does not suffer from any error of law. 2. Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.” 2. We are satisfied that the Court has considered the material before it including the impugned order. If the impugned order in the writ petition was misconstrued by the Court, the remedy would not be a review but an appeal. 3. As such we do not find any merit in this review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. S. SHINDE, J.)