RA/174/2025 of ASRADEVI MAJOOR SHAKARI SANSTHA LTD ASARDEV THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Ethape ( 1 ) Review Appln.174.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 174 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1431 OF 2024 Asradevi Majoor Shakari Sanstha Asaerdev Through Its Chairman, Vasant Nagorao Deshmukh …Applicant (Orig. Petitioner) V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents. ... Mr. Shivprasad G. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Rashmi P . Gaur, AGP for Respondent No.1 to 3- State. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 23rd JANUARY 2026. PC :- 1. Heard Mr. Jadhavar, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Gaur, the learned AGP for Respondent-State. 2. By way of this review application, the applicant original p etitioner seeks review of the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1431 of 2024, alongwith other connected writ petitions. This Court by way of said order, had dismissed the writ petition. Ethape ( 2 ) Review Appln.174.25 3. A challenge in the writ petition was to an order passed by the learned Collector, Beed, black-listing the petitioners. The petitioners happen to be the Labour Co-operative Society, who undertakes the work under various schemes by taking contracts from the Govern ment. Certain irregularities and illegalities were noted by the authorities in the work undertaken by the petitioner-society on contract basi s. An inquiry was held. On inquiry, it was found that the petitioner-soc iety has committed various irregularities and illegalities. The lear ned Collector, who is also acting as President of Jalyukta Shivar Yojna C ommittee, on holding inquiry, passed the order black-listing the applican t-society. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. 4. This Court after hearing the parties dismissed all the writ petition s. Now the review is sough only on the ground that the black listing cannot be for a life time and has to be only for specific period to be stated in the notice. 5. The learned Advocate in support of his argument relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.32840/2018 Ethape ( 3 ) Review Appln.174.25 in the case of M/s. Chauhan Builders Raibareli Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in CAO/1710/2016 in WP/2823/2015 in the case of Teenu Anjanrao Warjurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The learned Advocate thus submits that the black-listing cannot b e for a indefinite period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Chauhan Builders Raibareli (supra) held that the person cannot be black-listed for lifetime. In that case, the period of black-listing was not specified. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that such order cannot be sustai ned. The writ petition was dismissed in 2018. However, the Court entertained the writ petition by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and modified the order black-listing the petitioner therein for a period of five years from the date of order that was passed. 6. This Court finds that the said order was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by exercising the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. So far as the judgment in the case of Teenu Anjanrao Warjurkar (supra), the review was entertained as some policy was not pl aced Ethape ( 4 ) Review Appln.174.25 before the Court when the petition was decided. This Court finds that both the judgments are not applicable in the present case. No ground is made out showing that the error apparent on the face of record is committed. This Court thus finds that there is no substance in the review application. The review application deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]