Allahabad High Court
Aditya Sharma vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36606 of 2019
Petitioner :- Aditya Sharma
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun,R.P.S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
In Ref:- C.M. Review Application No. 4 of 2020
By means of the present review application, the review of the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Writ C No. 36606 of 2019 has been sought on three grounds. Firstly, that the previous order dated 16.09.2019 passed in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 has been obtained by committing fraud upon the Court and a review petition to seek review of that order has been filed in the month of August 2020 and the same is pending consideration.
It is further argued that the order dated 15.10.2019 has been set aside by this Court by the judgment under review, ignoring the fact that all documents which were required to be considered as per the directions of this Court dated 19.06.2019, were considered by the competent Authority while passing the order dated 15.10.2019. It is, thus, argued by learned counsel for the review applicant that the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020 has been passed in ignorance of the material on record and non-consideration of the claim of the review applicant, the respondent therein.
The third submission to seek review is that after passing of the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020, certain documents have been discovered which can establish the actual salary/income of the petitioner's father/family. The subsequently discovered documents, according to the learned counsel for the review applicant, can be made a ground to seek review of the order.
Dealing with these three grounds, we may record that as regards to the review sought of the order dated 16.09.2019, the issue therein is completely different from the dispute raised therein. The writ petition no. 21914 of 2019 was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2019. The contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that the order dated 16.09.2019 had been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. The said issue is not the subject matter of consideration in the present review application, inasmuch as, in the present case, while setting aside the order dated 15.10.2019, this Court has directed the review applicant/respondent to make a fresh consideration about the claim of the petitioner for grant of scholarship.
We, therefore, do not find any good ground to keep the present review application pending on the said assertion.
As regards the third ground of discovery of certain new documents after decision of this Court, suffice to say that those documents, which according to the review applicant, pertains to the income of the father of the petitioner can very well be considered while passing a fresh order in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020. In any case, the documents which were not before the review applicants at the time of passing of the order dated 15.10.2019, which has been set aside under the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020, cannot be taken as a ground to review the decision.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the review applicant that the pay slip, which was the basis of passing the order dated 16.09.2019 passed in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 was not relevant and hence was not considered by the competent Authority while rejecting the claim for scholarship.
Considering the said submission, we may note that the Division Bench had imposed cost on the ground that the decision making process was faulty and the relevant material as directed by this Court was not taken into consideration and that the matter has not been considered by the Deputy Secretary, who was directed to consider the matter. We may further record that the issue as to whether the petitioner herein is entitled for scholarship, was twice considered and rejected by the respondent. The direction of this Court was to consider certain documents, which appears to have not been followed which has lead to imposition of cost on the authority which has passed the order namely, respondent no. 2-The Director, Scholarship Division, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Room 412-B, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
Taking into consideration of all the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicants and particularly that the papers which were brought in writ petition no. 21914 of 2019, at the stage of review, were irrelevant and there has been due consideration to the claim of the petitioner for grant of scholarship, we though do not find any good ground to review the judgment and order dated 29.01.2020 but the order to impose cost upon the respondent no. 2 namely the Director, Scholarship Division, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Room 412-B, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi is hereby recalled.
The judgment and order dated 29.01.2020 is reviewed and modified to the above extent. The review application is, accordingly, allowed in part.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022
Vik/-
