Allahabad High Court
Chairman/Chief Managing ... vs Surendra Pratap And 4 Others on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47687
Reserved on: 17.07.2023
Delivered on: 21.07.2023
Court No. - 11
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 137 of 2022
Applicant :- Chairman/Chief Managing Director,U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lko. And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- Surendra Pratap And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
I.A. No.1 of 2022:
1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the review application.
2. Cause shown is sufficient.
3. Delay in filing the review application is condoned.
4. The application is accordingly allowed.
Order on Review Application:
1. Written arguments have been submitted on behalf of the review applicants.
2. Present review application has been filed by the review applicant seeking review of the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by this Court in Writ ? C No.1002174 of 2015 (Surendra Pratap & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.).
3. Submission of Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the review applicants is that this Court has not considered that the District Magistrate has already awarded the compensation without considering the objections filed by the applicants herein. It is further argued that the District Magistrate has awarded much higher compensation to the petitioners. It is also argued that the applicable judgments were not brought to the knowledge of this Court while the judgment was delivered. A strong reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanti Devi & Anr. v. U.P. Power Corporation; Writ Petition No.5283 (MB) of 2018 decided on 11.09.2019.
4. In sum and substance, submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that this Court has not considered the law as propounded in the case of Kanti Devi (supra) and also the fact that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the questions of fact.
5. I am afraid that the grounds taken for review cannot be accepted for the sole reason that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction, was looking into the orders passed by the District Magistrate in the award dated 13.03.2015 and whether the award made by the District Magistrate was in consonance with the mandate of Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991? The judgment in the case of Kanti Devi (supra), would have no applicability to the facts of the present case wherein the circular issued by the respondents was under challenge and this Court also observed that the order passed by the District Magistrate while exercising the power under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was not even challenged by the petitioner before this Court, whereas in the facts of the present case, the petitioner challenged the award of the Collector by arguing that the amount awarded by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was an improper exercise of power.
6. The other judgments to the effect that the disputed questions of fact cannot be entertained for the first time in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have no applicability to the facts of the present case as the writ petition was not filed for the first time before this Court and it was seeking a judicial review of the order passed by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 6 of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1921.
7. I do not see any reason to review the order dated 20.05.2022; even the submissions made are beyond the scope of review as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of CPC. The review application lacks merit and is accordingly rejected/dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
nishant
