Dismissed

Maruti Bapurao Lokhande v. Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Osmanabad Divn. Osmanabad

Bombay HC10 Dec 2014RA/77/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal, arguing the trial court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227. The court held the issue was conclusively decided against the applicant by a Full Bench, rejecting the flawed review application.

What did the court decide?

Review application rejected. No order as to costs.

Maruti Bapurao Lokhande Vs Divisional Controller… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

RA 77.14 in LPA 78.2000

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.77/2014 IN LPA/78/2000

¶5

MARUTI BAPURAO LOKHANDE.

¶6

...APPLICANT...

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C.
OSMANABAD DIVN. OSMANABAD.

¶9

...RESPONDENT...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri Sanjay Wakure, Advocate for Applicant.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶14

 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 10.12.2014

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard learned counsel for applicant.

¶18

2]Review is sought only on the ground that Letters
Patent Appeal as filed was not maintainable. Submission
is, petition as filed was under Article 227 and learned
Single Judge has accordingly exercised jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

3]After the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of by
Division Bench of this Court on 8.4.2009, that judgment

¶20

was questioned before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition No.29857/2009. Hon'ble Apex Court has on

¶21

RA 77.14 in LPA 78.2000

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

25.9.2012 considered the contention that issue of
maintainability of LPA was raised and also argued before
High Court and it was not answered. Hon'ble Apex Court,
therefore, allowed present applicant to bring this fact
to the notice of High Court by filing appropriate review
application. Accordingly, with that liberty and without

¶24

going into other details, the SLP was disposed of.
Thereafter, present review petition has been filed.

¶25

4]Learned counsel for applicant submits that looking

¶26

to the prayers made, learned Single Judge has exercised
jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal was not
maintainable. He is not in a position to point out the

¶27

grounds raised in Writ Petition No.10/2000 to
substantiate his contention. Perusal of first page of
petition, which is made available, shows that it was a
writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.

¶28

5]It needs to be noted that first page where title and

¶29

names of parties are mentioned as also last page with
prayer clauses are the only two pages made available to
which our attention is invited by learned counsel for

¶30

RA 77.14 in LPA 78.2000 - 3 -

¶31

applicant.

¶32

6] The issue stands concluded against review applicant by Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. V/s Machindra G. Makasare reported at 2011 (3) Bom.C.R., 12 . As such we are not in a position to accept that Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. Review application is, therefore, mis-conceived. It is rejected. No order as to costs.

¶33

ndk/ c10121411.doc

Maruti Bapurao Lokhande v. Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Osmanabad Divn. Osmanabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Bapurao Lokhande v. Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Osmanabad Divn. Osmanabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulam Ahmed Gulam Mohammad Vs the Municipal Corp. Abad and Ors.

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Babulal Bharuka and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Shyamrao Dhanwate and Ors. Vs M/S Indo European Breweries Ltd. Aurangabad and Anr.

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chief Promoter of Jal Devata, Magasvargiya Matsya Vyavsay Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Latur Vs the Minister of State, Fisheries and Others