1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5694 OF 2009 Syed Raisuddin son of Syed Aminoddin, Aged : 65 years, Occupation retiree, presently residing at Ahaibab Colony, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2. The Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Govt. of Maharashtra, New Administrative Building Opposite Assembly Hall, Pune ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.B. Lakhakar, Advocate for the petitioiner; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 11th Sept., 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 2.5.2008 dismissing the Original Application as premature. 3. It appears that the petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed in an enquiry against him had filed Original Application No.89 of 2007 before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner had also filed a review application before the Departmental authorities in respect of the order of punishment which was imposed on the petitioner. The aforesaid review application was pending when the Original Application came to be filed. Be that as it may, it appears that the review petition which had been pending came to be dismissed by the appropriate authorities. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the dismissal of the review application furnished a further cause of 3 action or an independent cause of action, the Original Application which was filed by the present petitioner assailing the order passed in the Departmental proceedings was rendered premature. 4. According to us, the aforesaid reasoning is wholly unsustainable in law. The petitioner had filed the Original Application against the order by which certain departmental action came to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the departmental action had preferred a review petition which was pending. By dismissal of the review petition the Original Application was neither rendered infructuous nor premature. The petitioner would be entitled to apply for amending the Original Application by raising challenge to the order passed in the review petition. 5. In the light of that, therefore, according to us the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside and this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for amendment of the Original Application by raising challenge to the order by 4 which the review petition came to be dismissed. 6. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5694.09