Allahabad High Court
Lalit Mohan vs Indian Oil Corporation ... on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?RESERVED JUDGMENT
Reserved on : 08-07-2021
Delivered on : 14-07-2021
Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10108 of 2015
Petitioner :- Lalit Mohan
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Bandra (East),Mumbai And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Tewari,Amit Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Shahi,Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Lalta Prasad Misra,Manish Jauhari,Ramesh Pandey,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
(C.M.A. Nos. 28496 of 2017 & 23479 of 2017)
Heard.
These are two applications seeking review of the judgement dated 23.01.2017 passed in writ petition No. 10108 (MB) of 2015. One of the applications bearing no. 23479 of 2017 is by the Indian Oil Corporation and its officers, represented through Shri Manish Jauhari, Advocate, whereas the other application is by the private opposite party represented through Sri C.B.Pandey, Advocate.
Essentially, the contention of both the learned counsel was that this court committed an apparent error in ignoring the plea raised before it that the Land Evaluation Committee did not have jurisdiction or authority to determine the distance of the proposed petrol pump from the centre of the road beyond 50 metres and the pre-determined norms in this regard had to be followed by it as per the procedure/policy and advertisement and Rules/bye-laws of P.W.D. Land Evaluation Committee could not itself determine this aspect. On a complaint being made the higher authority interfered in the matter and accordingly the same was rectified, as such this court erred in interfering in the matter .
We have perused the judgement under review and find that this aspect has been considered by this court in paragraphs 14 to 19 as also paragraph 30 to 35 of the judgement. Counsel for the applicants have not been able to show any pleading supported by documentary proof which could demonstrate that there was any material of a date prior to evaluation by the Land Evaluation Committee on record before the writ court to the effect that the Land Evaluation Committee did not have jurisdiction in the matter based on any decision taken by the Indian Oil Corporation at the competent level or on the basis of any provision mentioned in the advertisement or the brochure. No such norm which may have been pre-determined by any authority other than the Land Evaluation Committee was placed on record by the applicant either before the writ court or in these review proceedings. The UP Roadside Control Act 1964 does not per se lay down the norm for the purposes of establishment of a petrol pump. It is an Act which lays down the norms generally, prescribing the limits from the road upto which construction of any building cannot take place which under the Act is 50 meter from the centre of the road. A petrol-pump station cannot be constructed within the prohibited limits prescribed by the Act 1964. That is all. The Writ Court has held that the Land Evaluation Committee has not violated the Act 1964. The applicants have also not been able to show that there was any pleading or material on record demonstrating that there were rules or bye-laws of PWD before the writ court which were not taken into consideration and which belied the decision by the Land Evaluation Committee or that the same was contrary to it and that it was not considered by the writ court. They have also not been able to show any provision in the relevant brochure/policy, the advertisement or any other decision at the competent level of the Indian Oil Corporation wherein it may have been decided that the distance of the proposed petrol pump from the road would be only 50 meters and not beyond it, therefore, they have not been able to show that there was some pleading/material before the court which was not considered nor that subsequently some such material has been discovered which could not be placed before the writ court in spite of due diligence so as to warrant review of the judgment. If the judgement is erroneous on any issue, then it may be a ground for challenging the same, but not for reviewing it.
As regards contention of Sri CB Pandey, Advocate that misconception of fact or law is also a ground for review of the judgement in view of the precedent laid down by Hon'ble the supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and ors., 2005 (4) SCC 741, we do not see how that proposition is attracted in the facts of the present case as whatever grounds have been taken before us in the application for review and those which were argued have been considered by the writ court. The grounds on which review is permissible have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd. and ors., (2013) 8 SCC 337, vide paragraphs 9 to 12.3, and we do not find any such valid ground existing in this case for reviewing the judgement dated 23.01.2017. In the garb of a review application a re-hearing of the matter is impermissible. The court hearing a review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgement passed by a co-ordinate bench. The judgement under review does not suffer from any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor is there any other sufficient reason for reviewing the same. We accordingly dismiss both the review applications.
.
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
A.Nigam
