Bombay High Court

NITIN DEVRAM SAKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and refused to entertain the review.

Summary

The applicant, Nitin Devram Sake, sought condonation of delay in filing a review of the High Court's order dated 27 November 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11649 of 2025. The review raised the claim that a bank guarantee was never provided and that an amount was deducted without any policy or rule. The Court examined the earlier order, noting that the parties' inter‑se agreements were a condition of employment and that the writ petition had been dismissed because it involved a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided under Article 226. The Court found no sufficient ground to entertain the review application itself and therefore declined to issue notices for the delay application. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the review application can be condoned.
Whether the review application should be entertained despite the alleged factual disputes concerning the bank guarantee and deduction of amount.
Whether the matter falls within the jurisdiction of a writ petition under Article 226.

Subjects

review
condonation of delay
writ jurisdiction
Article 226
disputed facts
bank guarantee
employment agreement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44106-DB
                                              -1-
                                                                 902-CA-10872-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10872 OF 2026
                                         IN
                   REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL)(ST) NO. 28326 OF 2026
                                         IN
                           WRIT PETITION NO.11649 OF 2026

                                   NITIN DEVRAM SAKE
                                         VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
                                 SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                              ..…
              Mr. Akshay Raosaheb Dhore, Advocate for Applicant.
              Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents – State.
                                              .....

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                 HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                          DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          The present application is filed seeking condonation of

              delay in filing the Review Application, wherein the Review

              Applicant impugns the order passed by this court on 27 th

              November 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11649 of 2025.



              2.          In order to issue notices in the application for

              condonation of delay, we thought it is appropriate to weigh the

              merits of the Review Application. Learned Advocate for the Review

              Applicant invited our attention to the impugned order especially

              paragraph no. 3. He contends that the bank guarantee was never
                                  -2-
                                                      902-CA-10872-2026

given and in spite of there being no policy or rule the amount has

been deducted.



3.          We have perused the order impugned. Paragraph no. 2

of the said order clearly infer that the inter se agreements between

the parties were always a subject matter before accepting the

employment. In paragraph 3, the Writ Petition was dismissed only

on the ground that the issues which are raised in the Petition

pertains to disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in

a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.



4.          We do not find that there is any good ground for

entertaining the Review Application itself, and therefore, we are

not inclined to issue notices in the delay application.



5.          The application stands dismissed.




 [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.]                   [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]




Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…