1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2350 of 2008 Mahadev K. Yadav Petitioner Vs. The Division Railway Manager (E), and anr. Respondents Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi for petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for resp.no.1. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order passed on 22/2/2008 by the larned Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Mumbai thereby rejecting the application for restoration of Misc. Appeal No.98 of 2004. The said appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15/2/2008. . It was pointed out by the larned counsel on behalf of the Indian Railways that the order which was the subject matter of challenge in Misc. Appeal No.98 of 2004 was required to be challenged under the Administrative Tribunals Act by filing an Original 2 Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal as by the said order dated 17/9/2004, the service quarter which was allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. It was under these circumstances, the learned Principal Judge held that the restoration application need not be entertained. . No fault could be found with the view taken by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court. Hence Misc. Appeal No.98 of 2004 is disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to challenge the order dated 17/9/2004 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Mumbai Central. . The petition is disposed off in terms of the above order. (B.H.MARL