In Re vs Gopal Krishna Dwivedi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1643 AP

                                     1




      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

             MAIN CASE No.: C.C.No.1209 of 2021

                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                           ORDER

No DATE

18 7.04.2022 DEV, J

REVIEW I.A(SR).NO.19133 OF 2022

IN SUO MOTO C.C.NO.1209 OF 2021

This Review application is filed by the

Contemnor No.6 in C.C.No.1209 of 2021 under

Order 47 Rule 1 read with Article 215 of the

Constitution of India to review the order, dated

31.03.2022 in C.C.No.1209 of 2021 passed by

this Court.

2) Registry returned the said Review

application with the following objections:-

i) How this Review petition is entertainable?

ii) Correct provision of law is to be mentioned.

neat copies to be furnished.

iv) First page of the Order copy to be filed for the verification of cause title.

3) It appears that the learned counsel

for the petitioner has re-presented the Review

Petition after complying the objections raised by

the Registry with the following endorsement:-

i) In so far as objection no.3 is concerned, the papers which were served through the Court in Suo Moto are only filed in the present petition.

ii) In so far as objection Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, please place it before the Court.

iii) In so far as objection No.4, the certified copy could not be obtained.

4) Therefore, after considering the

endorsement made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner at the time of

re-submission, the registry placed this

application "for orders of the Court" as to the

entertainability of the Review application.

5) Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri

C.Sumon, learned counsel for the petitioner on

record and the learned Advocate General for the

State of Andhra Pradesh who is assisting the

Court as "Prosecutor" in the Contempt Case

and perused the material available on record.

6) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

(1) District Collector/Chairman Dist.

Scheduled Caste Service Co-op Society Ltd.,

Vs. U.Shankar1 and the High Court of

1999(2) ALD 74

Gauhati in (2) Sashi Prakash Vs. Government

Pensioner's Association, Agartala &

Another2, the High Court of Madras in (3)

Kumaran Silk Trade Ltd. Vs. Devendra3, the

Division Bench of Bombay High Court in (4)

Shyamsundar Vs.Lokesh Chandra4 (5) G.

Bhagavat Singh vs. Manoj Joseph and others

in C.C.No.832 of 2017 and the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in (6) T.Madan Mohan Reddy

Vs. Principal Secretary to Revenue

Department and others5 relying the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (7) M.M.Thomas

Vs. State of Kerala and another6 held that the

Review petition is maintainable against the

order in the Contempt case.

7) In the light of the Law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts as

stated supra, I am of the opinion that if there is

any an error apparent on the face of the record,

the High Court in exercising its powers as

envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution of

India is bound to correct such errors. Basing on

the facts and circumstances of each case, if the

2001 KHC 2690

2006(2) SCC 555

2010 Law Suit (Bom) 2004

2017(2) ALD 242 (DB)

2005(6) SCC 98

petitioner is able to satisfy the Court that there

is an error apparent on the face of the record,

this Court has to exercise its power to review its

order. Accordingly, it is held that the Review

petition is maintainable against the order in the

Contempt Case.

8) Having perused the law laid down by

various High Courts, it is our considered

opinion that this Court on its own can also

review the order passed by it in the Contempt

Case in exercise of the power conferred under

Article 215 of Constitution of India as a Court of

record.

9) Accordingly, the Registry is directed to

number this Review Petition subject to

compliance of other objections and place the

same before this Court.

_________ DEV, J

PGR