Arun Ramchandra Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

M. S. Sonak, J

By separate order, we condoned the delay in instituting this review petition. We have now heard Ms. Rajgor, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, in support of the review petition.

This review is directed against the order dated 19 March 2024 dismissing Writ Petition No.5769 of 2019 instituted by the Review Petitioner.

Ms. Rajgor, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, submits that errors apparent on the face of the record have crept into the judgment and order dated 19 March 2024. She points out that material facts have not been considered, and therefore, the order dated 19 March 2024 requires review.

Ms. Rajgor submits that the Petitioner was initially appointed temporarily without his participation in any exams, etc. She submits that this was a material fact, but it was not considered when the order dated 19 March 2024 was made.

Ms. Rajgor further submits that the Petitioner had made a representation dated 1 October 2003 and only because the same was pending, no proceedings were filed before the Tribunal. She submitted that in terms of the prescribed procedure, a petition/original application can be filed after the rejection of the representation and not before. She submits that even this important point was not considered when the order dated 19 March 2024 was passed.

Ms. Rajgor submitted that the order dated 19 March 2024 requires review on the above two grounds, which, according to her, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Mr. Walimbe and Mr. Deolekar, learned AGPs, submit that there is no merit in this review petition. They submit that there is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record.

Mr. Walimbe and Mr. Deolekar submit that the cause of action arose in 2003. The Superintending Engineer rejected the Petitioner’s representation on 6 August 2005. But the Petitioner approached the Tribunal only in 2015. They submitted that making repeated representations is not sufficient to defeat the limitation provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that there is no merit in this review petition.

The circumstance that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis without his participation in the examination is not at all relevant in this matter. In any event, it does not strengthen the Petitioner’s case, but rather, weakens it.

In any event, the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 2003. Based on this, the Petitioner made a representation in 2003 but was informed by the Superintending Engineer on 6 August 2005 that the request contained in his representation could not be accepted. Soon, thereafter or at least within the period of limitation prescribed, the Petitioner should have approached the Tribunal.

Instead, the Petitioner, after almost a year, made another representation dated 5 September 2006, repeating his requests. Even this was rejected. The Petitioner, however, waited until 31 October 2015 to file a fresh representation and has pleaded that the rejection of this representation would set the limitation into operation. This contention cannot be accepted.

It is well settled that by making repeated representations, the period of limitation cannot be extended. This is particularly true in service matters, where the aggrieved parties must approach the Court or Tribunal with utmost dispatch, or at the latest, within the limitation period prescribed.

There is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, in the order dated 19 March 2024. Accordingly, we dismiss this Review Petition without any costs order..