Judicial review may be warranted for prolonged non-action by administrative authorities, compounded by misrepresentation from legal representatives.

ORDER :

1. By this Review Application, the applicants have put forth prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as under :

“(B) This Review Petition may kindly be allowed by recalling Order dated 25/01/2022 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1250/2022, while disposing of the same with certain directions and further the Writ Petition No.1250/2022, my kindly be dismissed with exemplary cost.

(C) Pending the hearing and fnal disposal of this Review Petition, the efect, operation, execution and implementation of the Order under review dated 25/01/2022 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1250/2022, may kindly be stayed.

(D) Pending the hearing and fnal disposal of this Review Petition, the efect, implementation and operation of the Letter/Notice of fnal hearing dated 23/06/2022 (Annexure - ‘D’) issued from the ofce of the present Respondent No.6/The Tahasildar, Georai to the review petitioners and other, may kindly be stayed.”

2. After we heard the matter on 20.10.2022, Mr. C.V. Thombre, learned advocate representing the original petitioner Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni, sought a passover to take instructions from him. Today, Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni has fled an afdavit tendering an unconditional apology for having fled Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2022 seeking a direction that, his pending application dated 11.04.2009 before the S.D.O. Beed, be decided within a time frame, when the said application was already adjudicated upon by order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the S.D.O. Beed. Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni then stated in paragraph No.3 that, the application dated 11.04.2009 and application dated 28.11.2019 (wrongly typed as 28.18.2019) were handed over to the advocate. Then we are informed that, “handed over to the Advocate” means advocate Mr. D.K. Dagadkhair. He was the same advocate to fle Writ Petition No.1250 of 2022.

3. It is conceded in the light of the record that, application dated 11.04.2009 fled by Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni was decided by the S.D.O. Beed on 06.02.2014. The present applicants approached the District Collector by preferring appeal 2014/CD/APPEAL/CR-46 challenging the order of the S.D.O. Beed. By order dated 23.05.2014 the proceedings were decided. Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni then approached the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division–Aurangabad by preferring case No. ROR/REV/210/2014/B under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code , 1966. That Revision was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015. Mr. D.K. Dagadkhair, learned Advocate represented Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni before the Additional Divisional Commissioner No.2, Aurangabad by preferring proceedings No. 2015/ROR/REV/509 and by order dated 17.03.2018 the proceedings were also dismissed.

4. Thereafter Mr. Popatrao Vitthalrao Kulkarni approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No.1250/2022 through the same advocate Mr. D.K. Dagadkhair stating in the cause title, viz. “In the matter of Direction to the Respondents to Make Corrections of clerical errors in the record of Right and registeres, maintained under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code , 1966. As prayed by application dated 11.04.2009”.

Prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the Writ Petition No.1250 of 2022, were put forth as under :

“B. By issuing writ of Mandamus or certiorari or appropriate directions, orders, in the nature of appropriate writ / order, the respondents, may be directed to make correction of clerical error in the record of rights and registers maintained under section 155, of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code , 1966, in respect of the land