Review applications by bus transport workers challenging an earlier judgment regarding recovery of disbursed allowances were filed. The bench perused cited precedents but held that entertaining the reviews would amount to re-appreciation of facts and law already settled.
Both Review Applications were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ra6.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3848 OF 2009
Shri. Dilip Hunya Pawara,
R/o- Akkalkuwa Depot,
M.S.R.T.C., Dhule Division,
Akkalkuwa, Dist-Nandurbar
and others.
...APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.G. Magare Advocate for Applicants.
Shri.D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. D.S. Bagul Advocate for Respondent
No.4.
WITH
ra6.12
2
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7931 OF 2010
Kantilal Zinga Paradke
R/o- S.T. Colony, Special Quarter,
Akkalkuwa, Dist-Nandurbar
and others.
...APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.G. Magare Advocate for Applicants.
Shri.D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. D.S. Bagul Advocate for Respondent
No.4.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2012.
ORAL ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
ra6.12
3
2.Shri. Magare, learned counsel for the
Review Petitioners/Applicants submits that the
Respondent M.S.R.T.C. is not entitled to recover
amount already disbursed to the Applicants by way
of allowance. It was submitted that the
Respondents be directed not to recover such
amount. The learned counsel placed reliance on the
following Reported Judgments:
(1) Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union
of India, 1994 DGLS (Soft.),
184,
(2) Board of Control for
Cricket, India and another vs.
Netaji Cricket Club and others,
2005 A.I.R. S.C.W., 230,
(3) Purshottam Lal Das and
others vs. The State of Bihar
and others, 2006 A.I.R. S.C.W.,
5325.
ra6.12
4
3.Shri. Bagul, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent M.S.R.T.C. submits that the grounds
raised by the Review Petitioners amounts to re-
appreciation of the facts which were already
examined by this Court. Even otherwise, on merits,
the Review Petitioners are not entitled for the
said relief.
4.We have perused the Judgments cited
supra. The grounds raised in the Review
Applications do not commend us to exercise our
review jurisdiction. The decision on the grounds
raised herein, would amount to re-appreciation of
the matter. In the facts of the case, we do not
find that Review Applications are to be
entertained. Accordinglyboth the Review
Applications are dismissed.
[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/JAN12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review applications seeking relief from an already settled decision should be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri. Dilip Hunya Pawara and others
Kantilal Zinga Paradke and others
The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Transport Department
NARESH H. PATIL
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court