( 1 ) ra41.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 27 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 41 OF 2024 IN WP/13545/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VERSUS MAHESHPRASAD DWARKADAS JAISWAL AND ANOTHER Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the applicant-State. Mr. A.H. Kasliwal and Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocates for the respondents. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 29.09.2026 PC :- 01. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This application is filed seeking review of order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2017 allowing the Writ Petition. 02. Learned AGP points out that para 9 of the order wherein it is observed by this Court that the learned Additional Government Pleader could not point out any provision to the Court showing that the claim of the respondents/present applicants was legal. The Court, therefore, directed to refund the interest amount to the petitioners. Learned AGP now points out section 114 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, which reads as under :- 2026:BHC-AUG:45822-DB ( 2 ) ra41.24 “114. Recovery of duties, etc. (1) All duties, taxes, fines (except fines imposed by a Court) and fees leviable under any of the provisions of this Act or in respect of any licence, permit, pass or authorisation granted under it and the cost of the supervising staff appointed under section 58A if not paid within the due date or the prescribed period, shall be recovered from any person liable to pay the same or from his surety, if any, with simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent. Per month, from the date it has become due, as if they were arrears of land revenue. (2) When any person, in compliance with any rule, regulation or order made under this Act, gives a bond (other than a bond under section 91 or 93) for the performance of an act, or for his abstention, from any act, such performance or abstention shall be deemed to be a public duty within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (XI of 1872); and upon breach of the conditions of such bond by him, the whole sum named therein as the amount to be paid in case of such breach may be recovered from him or from his surety (if any) as if it were an arrear of land revenue.” 03. Learned AGP fairly concedes that it ought to have been pointed out to the Court at the time of hearing of the petition. However, the learned AGP was not fully prepared and inadvertently the mistake has occurred. He submits that now the loss is caused to the public exchequer. The amount of interest is directed to be refunded. Said amount is Rs. 11,68,375/-. 04. This Court finds that since important provision was not shown, this Court had disposed off the matter. Considering provision of section 114 of the Act, this Court certainly finds that it ought to have been considered while passing the impugned order. ( 3 ) ra41.24 05. Learned Advocate Mr. Kasliwal and learned Advocate Mr. Patil vehemently opposed the review application. They submit that there is no error apparent on the face of record committed by the Court. It is only in the matters where there is error on the face of record, the review is permissible. No case is made out invoking provision of section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. 06. However, this Court finds that when there would be loss of public exchequer and it is only because of inadvertence on the part of learned AGP the provision was not pointed out, it would be proper to recall the order and place the petition for hearing. 07. Considering the above, this Review Application is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2017 is hereby recalled. Place the Writ Petition for admission on Board dated 13.10.2026 in urgent admissions category. Till next date the amount deposited in this Court shall be kept as it is. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Sep26/ra41.24