4-RPW(ST)-21340-2026-F.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 21340 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2012 City And Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd … Petitioner V/s. Deepak D Patil And Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6591 OF 2026 Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Siddhiqui, Mr. Rahul Sinha, Mr. Soham Bhalerao,Mr. Arnav Ashtikar i/b DSK Legal, for Petitioner- CIDCO. Ms. Vaishali Jagdale with Yash K. Jagdale, for Respondents. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2026 P.C.: 1. After having been unsuccessful in the earlier round before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner has filed the present Review Petition. 2. The Petitioner contends that there are certain factual errors in the judgment and that the findings recorded with regard to continuous employment are also factually incorrect. 1 4-RPW(ST)-21340-2026-F.doc 3. However, on careful perusal of the Review Petition, I find that the Petitioner has not specifically identified the alleged factual errors in the judgment. Mere assertion that certain findings are factually incorrect, without pointing out the particular finding which suffers from such error and the material on record demonstrating the error, cannot constitute a ground for review. Grounds M, N and O are essentially based upon the alleged admissions of the workers regarding their period of work being less than 240 days prior to the date of filing of the complaint. These grounds, therefore, seek reconsideration of the factual appreciation already undertaken rather than pointing out any error which is apparent on the face of the record. 4. In my opinion, the judgment does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised by the Petitioner do not disclose any patent or self-evident error which can be corrected in review jurisdiction. The Petitioner is, in substance, seeking a re-appreciation of the facts and findings already considered, which cannot by itself be a sufficient ground for interference in review. 5. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 2