HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
6th APRIL, 2022
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.600 OF 2020
In
WRIT PETITON (S/B) NO.189 OF 2019
Dr. Anil Sharma
...Review-Petitioner/Writ Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and Another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Review Petitioner/
Writ Petitioner. : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhakar
Narayan, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
Corum: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral) This Review Petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 12.10.2020, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No.189 of 2019, "Anil Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another", whereby the writ petition, filed by the review petitioner, has been dismissed.
2
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review-petitioner submitted that a show cause notice was given to the review petitioner-writ petitioner. He moved a representation before the Department. However, before considering his representation, the Department removed the petitioner and these aspects have not been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in accordance with law in the judgment dated 12.10.2020.
4. We heard, perused and gone through the record.
5. From perusal of the judgment under review, it is quite clear that the said contentions were raised by the petitioner before the Writ Court. The Writ Court considered the same and after considering the said contentions, the writ petition was dismissed.
6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 1 of Order XLVII reads as under: 3
"1. Application for review of
judgment-
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
7. The right to review is the exception to the Latin term "Functus Officio". The power of review is 4 very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. The review application cannot be decided like a regular intra-court appeal.
8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake. Such power can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.
9. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of this power.
10. It is settled position that the review petitioner cannot re-argue the matter in the guise of review petition. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in 5 disguise. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the judgment, finality attached to the judgment cannot be disturbed. The present review petition does not come within the purview of Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the review petition. It is an attempt to re-argue the matter. Therefore, the Review Petition (No. 600 of 2020) is liable to be rejected; the same is dismissed.
____________________ RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 6th April, 2022 Neha/Pant