Allahabad High Court

Rohit Mishra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 12 March, 2025

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36311
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 71 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Rohit Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant/review-petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. The present review application has been filed by the review-applicant/petitioner seeking review of judgment dated 22.01.2025 passed in Writ A No.750 of 2025 (Rohit Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) which reads as follows:

1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to direct the respondent no.3-Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P. Prayagraj for inter-district transfer of the petitioner from district Fatehpur to district Prayagraj on medical ground to provide proper care and treatment to his ailing mother.

2. It is argued by Sri Shresth Pratap Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents that in case any transfer policy will issued by the State Government for the academic session 2025-26 and in case petitioner will apply pursuant to the same, the respondent authority will consider the case of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

5. In view of the same, present writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to apply for his transfer by way of online application in case any transfer policy is issued by the State Government for the academic session 2025-26. If such an application is filed as per government policy, the authority concerned is directed to take a decision in the matter expeditiously.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner that the order passed by the Writ Court is bad in the eyes of law as the various persons filed petitions before this Court and they granted relief from time to time by this Court, hence the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 is liable to be reviewed.

4. I have gone through the ground taken in Review Application, which virtually constituting an attempt to re-argue the matter which cannot be done in the garb of review.

5. It is well settled law that the power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and it may be exercised only on the ground that :-

(1) 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.

(2) Order made on account of some mistake.

(3) Error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.

6. The law governing the scope of review that has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Court in this case Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme court held as under:

?30...

The power can be exercised on the application of a person on 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 order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression ?any other sufficient reason? used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.

31. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct on apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.?

7. In the case of Union of India V. Tarit Ranjan Das reported in 2004 SCC (L & S) 160, it was further held by the Supreme Court that the scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate Court in respect of the original order, by a fresh order and rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.

8. In the case of Inter Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Motilal (Dead) through Lrs. reported in 2009 (14) SCC 663, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

9. In the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224, it was held by the Supreme Court the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers 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 paragraph 56 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted hereinbelow :-

56. It follows, therefore, 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 power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.

10. In the recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivakami and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2018 (4) SCC 587; it was again held by the Supreme Court that :-

18. The scope of the appellate powers and the review powers, is well defined. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. The review/application cannot be decided like a regular intra-court appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the appellate court.

11. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said:

"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the Principles:

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him:

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337.

22.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.