Bombay High Court
NARAYAN TATYABA GORE DIED THROUGH LRS RAMDAS NARAYAN GORE AND OTHERSversusVISHWAMBHAR SAKHARAM THIGLE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the review application was not maintainable as no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.
Summary
The applicants filed a review application against the order dated 18 January 2016 in Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2015, alleging that the same relief had been sought in an earlier writ petition (No. 7695 of 2014) which was withdrawn shortly before the later petition was filed. The review petition did not identify any error apparent on the face of the record, and the advocate for the applicants was not present when the order was passed. The Court noted that a reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is pending before a civil court, and substantive rights are yet to be adjudicated. Since no specific error was raised, the Court found no ground to entertain the review. Consequently, the review application was dismissed and the original order left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether a review application is maintainable when no error apparent on the face of the record is pleaded.
- Whether the filing of a fresh writ petition after withdrawal of an earlier petition for substantially the same relief bars a review of the later order.
- Whether pending civil proceedings under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 affect the scope of review.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3H(4)
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- writ petition
- error apparent on record
- National Highways Act
- Section 3H(4)
- civil proceedings pending
- withdrawal of petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46355-DB
15 RA (CIVIL) NO. 43 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 43 OF 2016
IN WP/12367/2015
Narayan Tatyaba Gore Died Through Lrs Ramdas Narayan Gore And
Others
VERSUS
Vishwambhar Sakharam Thigle And Others
…
• Mr. Mustafa Momin and Mr. Ramchandra J. Nirmal, Advocates
for the Applicants.
• Mr. G. K. Thigle, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
• Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondents - State
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. The applicants seek review of the order dated 18th January,
2016, passed in Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2015. However, in the
review application, no ground has been raised pointing out any error
apparent on the face of the record. The grievance of the applicants
appears to be that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2015
had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7695 of
2014 seeking substantially the same reliefs. The said writ petition
was withdrawn on 23rd November, 2015 and, within about 20 to 25
days thereafter, Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2015 came to be filed, in
which the order sought to be reviewed was passed.
3. Thus, the principal grievance of the applicants is that, after
withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, another writ petition was filed
Jhs/ 1/2
15 RA (CIVIL) NO. 43 OF 2016
seeking substantially the same reliefs. However, it is seen that the
present applicants were parties to Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2015.
The order sought to be reviewed records that the learned Advocate
representing them was not present when the matter was taken up.
Except for the aforesaid contention, no error apparent on the face of
the record has been pointed out warranting exercise of the review
jurisdiction.
4. It is admitted by the parties that a reference under Section
3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is pending before the
competent Civil Court. Since the substantive rights of the parties are
pending adjudication in the said proceedings, it would be open to the
parties to raise all permissible contentions before the concerned
Court.
5. We expect that the proceedings arising out of the reference
under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, shall be
concluded as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six
months from today.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to review
or recall the order dated 18th January, 2016, passed in Writ Petition
No. 12367 of 2015.
7. Accordingly, the Review Application stands disposed of.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Jhs/ 2/2
Checking your session…