(1) 7cao1452.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1452/2023 (FOR DELAY) IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. 8876/2018 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.3294/2011 (D) Nathu Gangadhar Rambhad .Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. S. V. Purohit, Advocate for non applicant Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2026 Heard. 2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking to condone delay of 20 days in filing review application. Since the delay is trivial and there is no serious objection, we allow the application. The delay in filing review application is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of. Misc. Civil Application St. No. 8876/2018 Heard. 2. The applicant is seeking to review/recall order dated 21.02.2018, which reads thus: “Order blacklisting a Contractor (petitioner) for a period of two years forms subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3294/2011. That period has already expired on 13/1/2013. 2) However, in Writ Petition No.3294/2011 on 29/2/2012 order has been passed directing its hearing with P.I.L. No.15/2011. In P.I.L. No.15/2011, grievance made is about maintenance, repairs and purchase of transformers by respondent no.2 as an ongoing process and, therefore, direction sought for is to test repaired transformers as also purchase new transformers as per tender specifications. 3) In paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of public interest litigation, some specific grievances have been pressed into service. 4) Respondent no.2 has denied the (2) 7cao1452.23 allegations. According to respondent no.2, repairs and purchases are carried out in transparent manner. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, points out that similar grievance was made with Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Commission has on more than one occasion passed orders finding no substance in such allegations. Those orders are also produced on record of Writ Petition No. 3294/2011. 5) Nobody appears for even petitioner in public interest litigation. 6) In this situation, as we do not see any need of further enquiry in the matter, we dispose of public interest litigation and dismiss Writ Petition No.3294/2011 as infructuous. No costs.” 3. As could be seen, order of blacklisting of the petitioner - Contractor was for the period of two years. The period had already expired on 13.01.2013. The earlier petition i.e. Writ Petition No.3294/2011 was heard along with Public Interest Litigation No.15/2011. The Court noted that none appeared for the petitioner in the petition as well as public interest litigation. Accordingly, on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. S. V. Purohit, learned counsel who appeared for respondent No.2, the Court thought it proper to dispose of the public interest litigation and dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. 4. Accordingly, we have inquired with learned counsel for applicant as to on what basis the present application is filed. He submits that the applicant suffered stigma of blacklisting. 5. Such a plea, according to us, cannot be a ground either to recall or to review the order. There is, thus, no substance in the application. The same is accordingly rejected. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 12/10/2026 18:05:37