HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Court No. - 2 Case :- REVIEW PETITION No. - 294 of 2011 Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey 7770 (M/B)2011 Respondent :- Sri Narain Singh, Minister Of Horticulture Deptt. Lko.& Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Pande Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
(Per Anil Kumar, J.) Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for review petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh.
Facts of the present case are that review petitioner, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, initially approached this Court by filling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the reliefs claimed by him petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 ( Chandra Bhushan Pandey Vs. Sri Narain Singh and others) are quoted hereinbelow:-
"i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Minister for Horticulture, the respondent no. 1 to remove Sri Jeevan Lal Verma for the post of his Personal Secretary.
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent no. 2 hold an enquiry regarding the misconduct of Sri Jeevan Lal Verma.
iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent no. 3, the Principal Secretary, Horticulture to ensure the proper application of the order passed by Principal Secretary dated 30th June, 2007 and to remove the officers wrongly posted accordingly.
iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 3 to give dual charge to all District Horticulture Officers till the shortage of cadre officers is fulfilled by fresh appointment.
v) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be issued in favour of the petitioner."
By order dated 30.08.2011, the above noted writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in regard to subject matter involved in the instant case, hence , he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the observation that "Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. has very fairly submitted that he will look into the matter and bring it to the notice of respondents no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, if the same is correct. We hope and trust on the submission made by Sri Mathur, who will use his office to do the needful."
Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for review petitioner submits that the petitioner is a "person aggrieved" because he is a citizen of India and being an officer of the Horticulture Department as well as the President of the Horticulture Officers Association. Due to corruption prevailing in the department the public money is being mis-utilized and the honest cadre officers including the petitioner are being subjected to cruelty, torture and misbehaviour. So, on the basis of some judgments of the Hobn'ble Supreme Court, which were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly unjust, improper, illegal and unconstitutional to not grant relief to the petitioner, as such the judgment needs to be reviewed.
He further submits that in spite of the assurance given by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. that he will look into the matter and bring to the notice of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, if the same is correct but nothing has been done. Sri Jeevan Lal Verma is still working as Personal Secretary to Minister, posted against the rules, still enjoying his office and the petitioner who approach this Hon'ble Court with an expectation that the Court will do justice, has been transferred from Headquarter to Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). So, the order dated 30.08.2011 may be reviewed.
Sri J.N. Mathur, learned AGA had informed that the order dated 30.08.2011 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 ( Chandra Bhushan Pandey Vs. Sri Narain Singh and others) has been communicated to the Minister concerned for necessary compliance.
After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh, the sole question which is to be considered and decided in the present case is the scope of review which is summarized as under:-
In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372, The Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
This Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163, rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:-
"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."
In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other " sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.
Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353, after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365; observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well."
In view of the abovesaid facts and taking into consideration that the writ petition filed by the review petitioner initially dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in the subject matter, hence no right to approach this Court by filling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so on the facts and grounds on which the present review petition filed, the same can not be entertained and decided, because as stated above under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning, for taking the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the review petition filed by the review petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.12.2011 Ravi/