Bodapatimasthan Rao vs State Of A.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 9923 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No: W.P No.12787 of 2020

                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                         OFFICE
        DATE                                  ORDER
No.                                                                                          NOTE
      28.12.2022 Dr.KMR,J


                                 Review I.A.No.1 of 2022
                                            In
                                  W.P.No.12787 of 2020

                         This application has been filed to review
                the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed by this
                Court in W.P.No.12787 of 2020.

                         Vide order dated 13.07.2022, this Court
                while allowing the Writ Petition, has observed
                hereunder:

                "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon
                considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this
                Court is of the considered view that the transfer proceedings issued
                by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent are hereby set

aside.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent sNo.2 and 3 are directed to post the petitioner as Senior Assistant in the NCC Directorate Office situated at Shyamalanagar, Guntur, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

Heard learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petitioner has suppressed the factum of his case that he has been promoted to the post of Superintendent, vide proceedings dated 6.7.2021 in subordinate offices and he joined as such in July 2021 and

also suppressed the fact that he was transferred from 23(A) BN NCC Chirala to 25(A) BN Guntur in the month of April 2022. He further submits that for transfers from Subordinate Offices to NCC Directorate, Guntur, the seniority is not a criteria but the conduct of the candidate is also equally important since the transfers are taken up on merit cum seniority basis.

Learned counsel has relied upon a case in Bangalore Development Authority vs P. Anjanappa (deceased) by L.Rs (2003 LawSuit (Kar) 13), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:

"In the present case, the observations made by the Apex Court, in my view would apply in all its force. The plaintiffs/private respondents in these proceedings have misled the Courts by misrepresenting the facts and the Trial Court was made to believe that certain proceedings were still pending before the Courts for adjudication and thereby allowed the Courts to commit a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record and if not for misrepresentation, the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact, did not exist and its perpetration would result in miscarriage of justice and therefore nothing would preclude this Court from rectifying the error which is apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, the meaning of the expression "for any other sufficient cause" which finds a place under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC would definitely assist this Court to correct a decree or order passed under this appreciation or on the basis of misrepresentation of facts."

He has relied upon another case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma versus Aribam Pishak Sharma and others (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 389), wherein it was held as under :

" that the two documents which were part of the record were not considered by the Court at the time of issue of a writ under Article 226 cannot be a ground for review especially when the two documents were not even relied upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before the Court in the proceedings under Article 226. Again that several instead of one writ petition should have been filed is a mere question of procedure which certainly would not justify a review."

Though the respondent No.4 i.e., the review petitioner herein shown as party to the proceedings and this Court issued notice and served on her, she did not choose to appear and contest the matter. While considering the judgments filed by the review petitioner that she has given opportunity to hear her version as respondent No.4 but failed to avail the opportunity and not contested in the writ proceedings.

After passing a final order, way back in the month of July 2022, belatedly he came up with this review application. This Court does not find any ground to review the order passed by this Court in WP No.12787 of 2020 and hence this application is liable to be dismissed.

           Accordingly,        the   I.A.No.1     of    2022      is
dismissed.        However, liberty is granted to the

petitioner to perceive the remedy available to him by way of filing appeal.

____________ Dr. KMR,J

Gvl