Bombay High Court
SUMAN GANESHRAO SHEJULversusATMARAM KISANRAO LIPANE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The review order was beyond jurisdiction and was quashed, with exemplary costs imposed on the respondent.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a review order dated 7 January 2017 issued by the Secretary and Special Work Officer, Maharashtra State, which set aside an earlier order of 19 September 2015. The petitioner argued that the earlier order had already been affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11386 of 2015, rendering the review jurisdiction unavailable. The respondent contended that the Court’s earlier order was not brought to its notice. The High Court found that the petitioner had indeed informed the respondent of the Court’s confirmation, and that the respondent neither identified any error apparent on the face of the record nor had jurisdiction to review a final order. Consequently, the review order was quashed and exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 were imposed on the respondent personally, to be donated to a cancer hospital.
Issues considered
- Whether the Secretary and Special Work Officer had jurisdiction to entertain a review of its own order after the order had been affirmed by this Court.
- Whether the existence of a final judgment barred the review application.
- Whether exemplary costs should be imposed for wilful disregard of the Court's earlier order.
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- misuse of review power
- finality of judgment
- exemplary costs
- quashing of order
- administrative law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18477
71.WP.3479.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3479 OF 2017
Suman Ganeshrao Shejul ...Petitioner
Versus
Atmaram Kisanrao Lipane and Others ...Respondents
***
Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f Mr. Salunke V.D., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGPfor Respondent – State.
***
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : APRIL 08, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
AGP.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07th January
2017 passed respondent No.3 – Secretary and Special Work Officer
(Appeals), Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Review Petition No.
2016/P.K.72/J-7/P.K.-48(04) 2016/A&P, whereby respondent No. 3
allowed the review application and set aside its earlier order dated 19 th
September 2015.
3. Mr. Jagadale, learned counsel instructed by Mr. V. D.
Salunke for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is a clear
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 4
71.WP.3479.2017.odt
misuse of the review jurisdiction vested in respondent No. 3. It is
submitted that the order dated 19 th September 2015, which was
sought to be reviewed, had already been challenged before this Court
by respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 11386 of 2015, and this
Court, by order dated 30th November 2015, dismissed the said writ
petition and confirmed the order dated 19th September 2015.
4. It is further submitted that despite the said fact being
specifically brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 by way of a
written say filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 proceeded to
entertain the review application and set aside the order dated 19 th
September 2015 which had already attained finality by virtue of the
order passed by this Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside with exemplary
costs.
5. Per contra, Mrs. Jape, learned AGP, supports the impugned
order by contending that the order passed by this Court was not
brought to the notice of respondent No. 3, and therefore, the review
was decided on merits.
6. Despite service, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 4
71.WP.3479.2017.odt
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident that the
petitioner had filed a written say before respondent No. 3, specifically
bringing to its notice that the order dated 19th September 2015 had
already been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11386 of
2015.
8. The record further indicates that the review application
was heard on several dates, and despite the said fact being brought on
record, respondent No. 3 proceeded to set aside its earlier order by
erroneously observing that the proceedings were pending before this
Court. The said observation is factually incorrect and contrary to the
record.
9. Moreover, respondent No. 3 has failed to record any
finding as to the existence of an error apparent on the face of the
record, which is a sine qua non for exercising review jurisdiction. Thus,
respondent No. 3 has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07th
January 2017 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 4
71.WP.3479.2017.odt
11. Considering that respondent No. 3, despite having
knowledge of the order passed by this Court, proceeded to pass the
impugned order in disregard thereof, this Court is of the opinion that
the matter warrants imposition of exemplary costs.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
07th January 2017 passed by respondent No.3 – Secretary and Special
Work Officer (Appeals), Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Review Petition
No. 2016/P.K.72/J-7/P.K.-48(04) 2016/A&P is hereby quashed and set
aside.
13. Respondent No. 3 – Sham Lal Goel, Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, shall pay costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) in this Court. It is made clear that the said amount shall be
paid from his own pocket, and he shall not seek any reimbursement
from the State Government.
14. Upon deposit, the said amount shall be transmitted to the
Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…