Telangana High Court
P.Ranjan Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 5 August, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
I.A. No.1 AND 3 OF 2023 IN W.P. No.7288 OF 2020
ALONG WITH W.P. Nos.7932 AND 20611 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. P. Ranjan Kumar, learned party-in-person, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing the High Court for the State of Telangana, Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI and learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs.
2. The petitioner herein filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.7288 of 2020 to declare G.O.Ms.No.61 Law (LA&J SPL.B) Department, dated 27.12.2019 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide ROC.No.3021 of 2016 and 146 of 2017-Vigillance Cell, dated 30.12.2019, as illegal and also to declare that he is entitled to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.
2
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
3. Vide order dated 25.06.2021, the Division Bench of this Court after hearing both side and considering the entire material on record, dismissed the writ petition.
4. The petitioner filed a review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 to review the said order dated 25.06.2021 in W.P.No.7288 of 2020.
5. Whereas, W.P. No.20611 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner to order for enquiry by CBI or by a special team of Investigating Officers on the complaint dated 01.08.2020 of the writ petitioner submitted to the Hon'ble the President of India and the complaint dated 01.09.2022 with the Superintendent of Police, Jagtial, by respondent No.1 directing respondent No.7 to register crime forthwith and further directing respondent No.2 to cooperate with respondent No.1 to take action against the assailants mentioned in his complaints dated 10.08.2020 and 10.09.2022 and to direct respondent No.1 to accord permission to prosecute the assailants.
6. He has filed W.P. No. 7932 of 2023 to pass appropriate orders on the proceedings in ROC No.3021/2016 and 146/2017- Vigilance Cell dated 26.02.2022 as void, ab initio and to declare the 3 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 proceedings issued by respondent No.2 in ROC No. 3021/2016 and 146/2017-Vigilance Cell, dated 18.08.2017 are void and not binding upon the petitioner; and declare the G.O.Ms.No.61 Law and J. Spl. Department dated 27.12.2019 issued by respondent No.1 as void due to fraud and misrepresentation before this Court and is not binding upon the petitioner; and to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 in ROC. No. 3021/2016 and 146/2017-Vigilance Cell, dated 30.12.2019 as void due to fraud and misrepresentation and is not binding upon the petitioner and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to reinstate into service with all consequential benefits.
7. Since lis involved in these matters and the parties are one and the same, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.
8. FACTS:
i) The petitioner joined in Judicial Service as Junior Civil Judge on 06.05.1994. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 2005 and as District and Sessions Judge in September, 2005.
While working as II Additional District Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, he was placed under suspension on 18.08.2017. Articles of charges were served on him on 15.02.2017. The petitioner submitted 4 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 his explanation/written statement on 29.01.2018. A Regular Departmental Inquiry was ordered and the Inquiry Officer on conducting inquiry submitted report on 06.09.2019 holding that second part of Article of Charge No.2 is not proved and first limb of Article of Charge No.1 and first part of Article of charge No.2 and Article Nos.3 and 4 were proved. A copy of the inquiry report dated 06.09.2019 was served on the petitioner with a direction to submit his objections. He has submitted his objections on 22.11.2019.
ii) On consideration of the same, vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Law Department, dated 27.12.2019, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner and sanction of retiral benefits as per Rule - 39 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 i.e., 2/3rd of the invalid pension was imposed. On 30.12.2019, the Registrar General of this Court communicated copy of the said G.O. to the petitioner. He has filed a writ petition vide W.P. (Civil) No.248 of 2020 to quash the said G.O. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 18.02.2020, the Apex Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the punishment.
5
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
iii) Thereafter, he has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.7288 of 2020 challenging the G.O.Ms.No.61, and vide order dated 25.06.2021, this Court dismissed the said writ petition confirming the said punishment imposed on the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed SLP (Civil) No.10961 of 2021, and the Apex Court dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 03.09.2021. The petitioner herein has filed a review vide R.P. (C) No.1074 of 2021 in SLP (C) No.10961 of 2021, to review the order dated 03.09.2021 in SLP (C) No.10961 of 2021. Vide order dated 26.10.2021, the Apex Court dismissed the said review petition.
iv) The petitioner herein has filed a writ petition vide W.P. (C) No.143 of 2023 before the Apex Court, and the Apex Court vide order dated d13.02.2023 dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn recording the assurance of the petitioner that he will not initiate any further litigation in reference to the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.12.2019, vide G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 27.12.2019. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 27.12.2019 attained finality.
v) The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 to review the order dated 25.06.2021 in W.P. 6 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 No.7288 of 2020. He has also filed I.A. No.3 of 2023 to receive the additional documents i.e., order in ROC No 3021/2016 146/2017Vigilance Cell, dated 26.02.2022, review petition and supplementary review petition, dated 17.12.2021, 12.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 and R.T.I. information from Jagtial Bar Association, dated 06.01.2022 dated 09.12.2021 and notice and reply notice from Jagitial Bar Association and connected record to support his version. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
9. The aforesaid facts would reveal that despite giving assurance that he will not initiate any further litigation in reference to the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.12.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Law Department, dated 27.12.2019 before the Apex Court on 13.02.2023 in W.P. (C) No.143 of 2023, he has filed W.P. No.7932 of 2023 challenging the said G.O. dated 27.12.2019.
Therefore, the said challenge is contrary to the assurance given by him before the Apex Court on 13.02.2023 in W.P. (C) No.143 of 2023. Therefore, on the said ground alone, W.P. No.7932 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.
10. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition vide W.P. No.7288 of 2020 challenging 7 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 G.O.Ms.No.61, Law Department, dated 27.12.2019 and the consequential order dated 30.12.2019 pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court vide order dated 18.02.2020 in W.P. (C) No.248 of 2020consideration. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2021. The Apex Court confirmed the same vide order dated 03.09.2021 in SLP (Civil) No.10961 of 2021. Vide order dated 26.10.2021 in RP (C) No.1074 of 2021, the Apex Court also dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 03.09.2021 in SLP (Civil) No.10961 of 2021. Thus, the petitioner cannot file W.P. No.7932 of 2023 challenging the compulsory retirement order dated 27.12.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Law Department, dated 27.12.2019. The lis involved in W.P. No.7932 of 2023 is hit by doctrine of res judicata. Therefore, W.P. No.7932 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed on the said ground also.
11. The petitioner filed I.A. No.3 of 2023 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 to receive some additional documents. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and having satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this petition is allowed. 8
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
12. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 to review the said order dated 25.06.2021 in W.P.No.7288 of 2020 on the following grounds:
i. The petitioner served as Judicial Officer for 26 years without any adverse remarks in his entire service.
ii. He was appointed as Judicial Officer/Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class in the year 1994, and in the year 2015, he was promoted as District Judge and was posted as II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jagtial.
iii. On 18.08.2017, respondent No.2 served Departmental Inquiry proceedings on him on the ground that the Bar Association, Jagtial, alleged to have filed two memorandums dated 5.11.2016 and 11.1.2017 against him, and one Mr. Robert Jacob, Advocate, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, filed a complaint dated 15.07.2017 against him. Basing on alleged reports sent vide Dis. No.1103, dated 14.02.2017, common report vide Dis.
No.4056, dated 19.06.2017, a detailed report dated 01.08.2017 was sent by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. Pursuant to the same, the respondents initiated departmental inquiry vide 9 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 proceedings ROC No. 3021/2016 and 146/2017 - Vigilance Cell, dated 18.8.2017.
iv. The Bar Association, Jagtial, did not file any complaint dated 05.11.2016 or 11.01.2017 against him which is clear from the information dated 06.01.2022, 09.12.2021 obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI), from the Bar Association, Jagtial, and a copy of reply notice dated 19.10.2022 from the Bar Association, Jagtial, to his legal notice dated 07.10.2022 and the Bar Association did not pass any resolution against him during his tenure as the District and Sessions Judge at Jagtial. v. The Receiving Register of respondent No.2 for the period from 04.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 shows that the Bar Association, Jagtial, did not file any complaint against him on 05.11.2016 before the High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. vi. The chief-affidavit and deposition of Smt. Renuka Yara, the then District Judge, Karimnagar, shows that the Bar Association, Jagtial, did not file any complaint on 05.11.2016 before the High Court or any Authority also shows that respondent No.2 suppressed the report in Dis. No.1103 dated 14.02.2017 substituted with some other letter in its place. 10
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 Likewise, the deposition of one Sri Banda Bhasker Reddy, Advocate, Jagtial, supports the fact that the alleged memorandum/complaint dated 11.01.2017 is a fake one as it does not bear his Signature. Like-wise, on his application dated 25.08.2018, the Chief Justice of Telangana, has passed an order, dated 01.09.2018 directing respondent No.2 to serve the report dated 14.02.2017 by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, and the alleged common report sent by Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, but so far respondent No.2 did not serve the same.
vii. When there is no complaint against the petitioner filed by the Bar Association, Jagtial, on 05.11.2016 or on 11.01.2017, when the letter dated 17.05.2018 of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad speaks that there is no person by name Robert Jacob, Advocate, Musheerabad, who is a fictitious person, there is no question of his lodging a complaint against the petitioner on 15.07.2017. viii. The docket proceedings dated 15.9.2018 of Inquiring Judge shows that a fake complaint dated 15.07.2017 was inserted 11 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 alleged to have addressed by Mr. Robert Jacob, a fictitious person.
ix. It is mandatory that a Judge of this High Court has to conduct discrete inquiry if any, prior to initiation of departmental inquiry as no complaint on the alleged dates against him, that too, as per Clauses 147 and 148 of the Board Standing Orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, are filed against him as the petitioner is in the District Judge Cadre Officer. For that, the respondents did not mark any of the alleged complaints in their testimony in departmental inquiry or in the writ petition mentioned in the charge-sheet on their behalf. This shows that no complaint has been filed against him by the District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial to the High Court or any authority by the Bar Association, Jagtial. x. When the petitioner imposed life imprisonment against three (03) accused in a murder cases in S.C.No.207 of 2013 and S.C.No. 292 of 2013, he was cornered.
xi. When one Mr. Bhanda Bhasker Reddy, Advocate, Jagtial tampered the Court record in S.C.No.509 of 2015, in which conviction was imposed, he was also cornered. 12
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 xii. A notice was issued to the staff members, who allowed Mr. Banda Bhasker Reddy to tamper the Court record. xiii. When the petitioner allowed M.V.O.P. No.53 of 2016 partly ex parte by issuing prior notice to the learned counsel about the pronouncement of judgment, he was cornered. xiv. Prior to initiation of departmental inquiry proceedings, the petitioner received an intimation from the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, about their forwarding a representation dated 15.08.2016 to the High Court of Telangana, in which he was impersonated and the petitioner had replied to it.
xv. The petitioner filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.31612 of 2011 and W.P.No.15525 of 2017 and two other writ petitions, with regard to his fixation of seniority and implementation of Rule of Reservation meant for SC/ST's in appointment and in promotion, but respondent No.2 is not implementing the same intentionally.
xvi. The petitioner was gheraoed by the Bar Association, Jagtial with regard to the issue of bifurcation of the High Court stating that 'Andhra Judge go back', and even 155 post cards, 13 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 threatening him to leave Telangana Judicial Service when he opted for the Telangana Judicial Service on 05.07.2016. In fact, the Bar Association, Jagtial, along with Court Staff boycotted the Courts for 3 or 4 months, which was published in Sakshi and Eenadu daily newspapers dated 18.06.2016, 27.06.2016 and 05.07.2016, respectively. xvii. The beneficiaries in Cheque Petitions filed vide I.A.Nos.22 of 2017, 234 of 2017, 235 of 2017, 200 of 2017, 201 of 2017, 366 of 2017 and 421 of 2017 in O.P 198/2004, received their compensation amounts in execution as per the Court record and the said amounts were deposited in their bank accounts. xviii. Even, under the documents covered vide Exs.P58 to P177, a judicial order was passed, reopening the said I.As., for further hearing, which does not fall under the caption 'Corruption'. The documents covered under Exs.P14 to P177 are the Photostat copies, which are inadmissible in evidence and not part of charge sheet, where there is no mention of names of the parties, Advocate, Court, Section of Law and it is not known whether the said docket proceedings pertain to the Court of II Additional District, Jagtial, or not and hit by note appended to 14 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 Section 20 (11) (c) of the CCA Rules. In fact, Section 20 of CPC will not be applicable to MVOP Cases in lieu of Rule 473 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even in ex parte order in MVOP No.53 of 2016, no amount was deposited by the respondent therein so far, and that respondent No.2 did not mark any High Court Circulars in evidence, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner flouted the High Court Circulars. xix. No Stenographer was provided to the petitioner and the stopgap stenographers applied long leaves. Even then, the petitioner wrote the judgments by hand and pronounced and he applied for the hand written orders pronounced by him under RTI, but the same were not provided so far. Even then, the petitioner secured more than required Units. In fact, the alleged delay, if any, in the said I.As. in MVOP covered under Exs.P58 to P177 occurred due to the above reason only.
xx. The above facts would reveal that respondent No.2 intentionally without any complaints against the petitioner and despite his passing judicial orders, by planting false record initiated departmental inquiry, is nullity.
15
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 xxi. Sri Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, who was the then Disciplinary Committee Member, acting as an Inquiry Officer, may not do so, which enquiry report is ipsedexit, perverse and not based on legal evidence.
xxii. In this case, there is only one charge as a whole. It is not capable of being split into Part-I and II. The Disciplinary Authority wanted to split the charges into sub Articles of charge. He himself in the case on hand did it as seen from Article of Charge No.1 (article of charge No.1 contains, article of Charge 1 (i), Article 1(ii) and article 1(iii). the Inquiry Officer split Charge No.1 (i) into two halves and seeks to hold second half of the charge No.1 (ii) as proved, holding rest of charge No.1 (i, ii, iii) are not proved. Such splitting of charge by the Inquiry Officer was violative of service jurisprudence relating to disciplinary proceedings.
xxiii. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition vide W.P. No.15525 of 2017 for his proper fixation of seniority, in which one of the adjudicators, who dealt with W.P.No.7288 of 2020, represented respondent No.2 herein earlier who may not act as Prosecutor- cum-Judge under service jurisprudence in general. 16
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 xxiv. Though the petitioner filed written submissions with Case Laws in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 vide W.P.USR No.13509 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021, but it was not answered in toto. xxv. In fact, the petitioner could not mark RTI information obtained from the Bar Association dated 06.01.2022, 09.12.2021, reply notice, dated 19.10.2022 stating that they did not file any complaint against the petitioner during his tenure as District Judge at Jagtial and did not pass any resolution at all against him which discovery of new evidence or new matter was not with his knowledge and could not be adduced by him when the order in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 on the file of this Court and in SLP No.10961 of 2021, SLP Review Petition (C) No.1074 of 2021, which were dismissed in limine and as the RTI information mentioned above affects the root of respondent No.2's case of its vested interest by creating false document/fake record by playing fraud on the institution/High Court of Telangana and the petitioner, for that they even did not mark any alleged complaints, mentioned in charge sheet (Ex.D35). As such, the findings in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 and connected proceedings have to be reviewed as it is obtained by 17 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 playing fraud on institution, which is a nullity and void ab initio.
xxvi. After the petitioner came to know about RTI information from the Bar Association, Jagtial, dated 6.01.2022, 09.12.2021, reply notice, moved a review petition dated 17.12.2021 and supplementary review petition before this Court, which was rejected on 26.02.2022.
xxvii. In lieu of discovery of above new evidence which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner which could not be produced by him, when the order in W.P.No.7288 of 2020 was made or passed and as the respondents vested interest played fraud on the Institution/High Court by creating false record/fake complaints against the petitioner is a nullity and the petitioner moved the review petition, basing on above grounds including contradictions and anomalies that are apparent in the impugned order.
xxviii. When the departmental inquiry was initiated without any complaint against the petitioner but based on judicial orders passed by the petitioner in different cases, it does not amount to misconduct.
18
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 xxix. Against the judicial order, the aggrieved party has to prefer appeal but departmental enquiry cannot be conducted against the said judicial officer.
xxx. The impugned order is liable to be reviewed since there are errors which are apparent on the face of the record and other sufficient reasons for reviewing the said impugned order. xxxi. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15525 of 2017 and during pending of which one of learned Adjudicator who adjudicated W.P.No.7288 of 2020, earlier represented on behalf of respondent No.2 in the above case as their counsel. Though the petitioner has submitted his written arguments/submissions with dictums in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 vide W.P.USR No.13509 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021, it was not answered in toto.
xxxii. It is submitted that the impugned G.O.Ms. No.61 and connected proceedings of respondent No.2 is hit by Rule 21 of the CCA Rules as no final speaking order by the Disciplinary Authority imposing any one of the penalties described in Rule 9 on the petitioner was served.
19
KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 xxxiii. Though the petitioner filed review petition dated 17.12.2021 with supplementary review petitions dated 12.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 through the Registrar (Vigilance) seeking to review the order of compulsory retirement, which petitions were rejected in limine on 26.02.2022, without considering the points raised by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons.
xxxiv. He knocked the door of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing W.P. No. 143 of 2023, but on the advice of Senior Advocates, he withdrew the same. As such, he is constrained to file the present review petition (judicial side) to review the order in W.P.No.7288 of 2020, declaring the G.O.Ms. No. 61 dated 27.12.2019 and the proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide ROC Nos. 3021/2016 and 146/2017-Vigilance Cell, dated 30.12.2019 and proceedings of respondent No.2 in ROC.No.3021/2016 and 147/2017 dated 18.08.2017 is void ab intio and is not binding on him as it was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation on the institution/High court by following the dictum reported in Civil Appeal No.2432 of 2019 and 2433 of 2019 (arising out of SLP( C ) 490 of 2012 and 20 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 arising out of SLP ( C ) No.13792 of 2013 in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd1 and also the dictum in Civil Appeal No.6161 of 2022, dated 03.03.2023 in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India 2 and pass a direction or order to reinstate the petitioner into judicial service forthwith, with back wages by regularizing his services.
13. The petitioner has filed lengthy written arguments and argued extensively.
14. As discussed above, the writ petition filed by him vide W.P. No.7288 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2021, the same was confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 in SLP (C) No.10961 of 2021 and the review petition filed by him was also dismissed on 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 to review the order dated 25.06.2021 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 on the aforesaid grounds.
1 . (2019) 4 SCC 376 2 . 2023 Live Law (SC)165 21 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
15. As discussed above, the petitioner herein gave an assurance before the Apex Court that he will not initiate any further litigation in reference to the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.12.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Law Department, dated 27.12.2019. Recording such assurance, vide order dated 13.02.2023, the Apex Court dismissed W.P. (C) No.143 of 2023 as withdrawn. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot file the aforesaid I.A. No.1 of 2023 to review the order dated 25.06.2021 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020, and it amounts to violation of assurance given by him before the Apex Court in W.P. (C) No.143 of 2023. Therefore, I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
16. As discussed above, the petitioner has filed present review application on the aforesaid grounds. Scope of review is very limited. Fresh hearing in review application is impermissible as held by the Apex Court in N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria3. Review application can be considered if there is mistake apparent on the face of record as held by the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati4.
3 . (2013) 15 SCC 534 4 . (2013) 8 SCC 320 22 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
17. The petitioner cannot raise a new ground and seek review of the order as held by the Apex Court in Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick5.
18. The petitioner cannot raise new issue and new ground in a review application and it cannot be considered as held by the Apex Court in Nehali Panjiyara v. Shyama Devi6.
19. The ground/point which was not argued in writ petition is deemed that it was given up as held by the Apex Court in Common Cause v. Union of India 7.
20. The Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyauman Singhji Arjunsinghji 8 held that power to review is not inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.
21. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the review application filed by the petitioner vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 on the aforesaid grounds is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.
5 . AIR 1988 SC 2121 6 . (2002) 10 SCC 578 7 . (2004) 5 SCC 222 8 . AIR 1970 SC 1273 23 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23
22. The petitioner has also filed W.P. No.20611 of 2023 to order for CBI Inquiry or by a Special Team of Investigation and to punish the assailants mentioned in the complaint dated 01.08.2020 and 01.09.2022 on the following grounds:
i) One Mr. Banda Bhasker Reddy, Advocate made false representation that Bar Association, Jagtial made alleged complaints against him and also passed a resolution against him. In fact, there was no complaint against him filed by Bar Association, Jagtial either on 05.11.2016 or 11.01.2017 or 15.07.2017; and
ii) He filed a criminal complaint before Jagtial Police Station on 01.09.2022 and a complaint before His Excellency, the President of India on 01.08.2020, Vice-President of India on 04.10.2021, the Governor of Telangana State dated 12.03.2022, but the assailants mentioned in the said complaints created false complaint against the sitting Judge of the High Court Judge by impersonating him, fabricating reports and records by colleague District Judge's and aided by Officers of the High Court Administrative Wing, fake complaint dated 11.01.2017 to the High Court, second fake 24 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 complaint dated 15.07.2017 to the Registrar General and The Registrar (Vigilance) in the name of non-existing advocate, misbehavior of advocates of Bar Association, Jagtial against him and making wild and false allegations against him, thereby committed criminal conspiracy, cheating, fabricating evidence and fabricating false documents against him, but he did not get justice.
23. There is no dispute that this Court under Article 226 of Constitution is having power to entrust the investigation to an independent agency including CBI. But, it cannot be in a routine manner. It should be in extraordinary circumstances this Court can use powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sparingly in exceptional circumstances investigation can be entrusted to CBI as held by the Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 9.
24. In rarest of rare cases, investigation can be entrusted to CBI as held by this Court in Mr. B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India10 9 . AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 948 10 . AIR OnLine 2021 TEL 122 25 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 and confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 in W.P. (C) No.555 of 2020.
25. It is also apt to note that this Court cannot order inquiry by a Special Team of Investigation (SIT) in a routine manner. Only under special circumstances investigation can be entrusted to SIT. The petitioner has submitted representation/ complaint on 01.09.2022 with a request to entrust the investigation to CBI or SIT i.e., after dismissal of W.P. No.7288 of 2020 by this Court, dated 25.06.2021 and confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 03.09.2021. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to entrust the investigation to SIT.
26. In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant entrustment of investigation either to CBI or SIT. Thus, the petitioner failed to make out any case to entrust the investigation either to CBI or to SIT. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition fails and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.
27. IN THE RESULT, I.A. No.3 of 2023 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 is allowed, while I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No.7288 of 2020 is 26 KL,J & PSS,J IA No.1 & 3 of 23 in WP No.7288/20 along with WP No.7932 & 20611/23 dismissed. W.P. Nos.7932 of 2023 and 20611 of 2023 are also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J __________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J 5th August, 2024 Mgr