Allahabad High Court
Ramu Bajpai vs Indian Oil Corporation ... on 17 May, 2013
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53401 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ramu Bajpai
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Mumbai And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Girijesh Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Prakash Padia
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 29581 of 2013
The aforementioned Application has been filed alongwith Civil Misc. Review Application No. 29582 of 2013, interalia, praying for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. An Affidavit, sworn by Ramu Bajpai (petitioner), has been filed in support of the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application.
Issue notice on the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application.
Notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been received by Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the said respondents.
Therefore, no notice need be sent to the respondents.
Shri Subodh Pandey holding brief for Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 states that Shri Prakash Padia does not propose to file any counter affidavit in reply to the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application.
Having regard to the averments made in the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application and its supporting Affidavit and having considered the submissions made by Shri P.K. Kashyap holding brief for Smt. Girijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and Shri Subodh Pandey holding brief for Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the aforesaid Review Application.
The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, therefore, deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed.
The delay in filing the aforesaid Review Application is condoned.
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 29582 of 2013
Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned Review Application.
The aforementioned Review Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, interalia, praying that the judgment dated 11.10.2012 passed by this Court dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53401 of 2012 be reviewed and the said judgment be set-aside.
By the said judgment dated 11.10.2012, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.9.2012 whereby the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak was cancelled. It was noted in the said judgment that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement of owning land, as menitoned in the Manual for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak, and, therefore, no illegality was committed by the respondents in issuing the said communication dated 22.9.2012 cancelling the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. In the said judgment dated 11.10.2012, this Court considered the definition of "Family Unit" also. This Court also held that the requirement regarding ownership of the land was to be filfilled when the petitioner was making an Application for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. Subsequent acquisition of the ownership of the land was immaterial for considering the Application for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak.
A perusal of the grounds raised in the aforementioned Review Application shows that the petitioner is seeking to question the said judgment dated 11.10.2012 on merits. Shri P.K. Kashyap holding brief for Smt. Girijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of "Family Unit" was not correctly appreciated by this Court in the said judgment dated 11.10.2012. The said submission evidently relates to the merits of the said judgment dated 11.10.2012.
It is well settled that a Review Application cannot be Appeal in disguise. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.10.2012, it was open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the Higher Court.
Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions:
1. Lal Mohammad Vs. S.D.O., Bareilly and another, 1959 ALJ 223.
2. Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Lal Chand (dead) & others, 2004 (55) ALR 690 (paragraph 45).
Shri P.K. Kashyap holding brief for Smt. Girijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after cancellation of the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak, one Gaurav Chaturvedi was selected as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak even though the said Gaurav Chaturvedi did not fulfil the requirements and was not entitled to be selected as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak.
It is noteworthy that the question of selection of the said Gaurav Chaturvedi as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak was not raised in the Writ Petition nor was the said Gaurav Chaturvedi impleaded as respondent in the Writ Petition. It is further noteworthy that as per the averments made in paragraph 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the aforementioned Review Application, the said Gaurav Chaturvedi has been selected as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak after the passing of the said judgment dated 11.10.2012.
Evidently, in view of the above, the question of selection of the said Gaurav Chaturvedi as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak cannot be a ground for reviewing the said judgment dated 11.10.2012.
The aforementioned Review Application, filed on behalf of the petitioner, lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
safi
