Common Citizen Of India (Common ... vs Bombay High Court And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 729 Bom

                                                  Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 15883 OF 2016
                             IN
               WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015

 1. Common Citizen of India                   }
 (Common Man)                                 }
 through Rakesh Omprakash                     }
 Agrawal, aged 57 years,     }
 Occupation - Social Worker,                  }
 R/at 39, Udhan Complex, Gandhi               }
 Chaman Road, Jalna,                          }
 Tal. and Dist. Jalna                         }
                                              }
 2. Peoples Rights Vigilance                  }
 Organisation (NGO), through                  }
 "General Secretary" Rakesh                   }
 Omprakash Agarwal, aged 57                   }
 years, Occupation Business,                  }
 R/at G-2 Abad Complex, Gandhi                }
 Chaman Road, Jalna,                          }
 Tal. and Dist. Jalna.                        }       Petitioners
           versus
 1. The Hon'ble High Court        }
 Judicature of Bombay through     }
 Registrar General, High Court,   }
 Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai,       }
 Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai.        }
                                  }
 2. State Government of           }
 Maharashtra, through Chief       }
 Secretary, Law and Judiciary     }
 Department, Mantralaya,          }
 Mumbai - 32                      }
                                  }
 3. The Government of India       }
 through Chief Secretary,         }
 Law and Judiciary Department     }
  th
 4 floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan, }
 New Delhi.                       }                   Respondents




                               Page 1 of 10
 J.V.Salunke,PA




::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 01:05:03 :::
                                                      Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc


 Mr. Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal-petitioner-in-person - present,
 Mr. Arun Ghode, President - Peoples Rights Vigilance
 Organisation - present in person.
 Mr. Venkatesh Dhond - Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi
 i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for respondent no. 1.
 Mr.P.G.Sawant - AGP for respondent no.2.
 Mr. A. A. Garge for respondent no. 3.


                               CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                        G. S. PATEL, JJ.

Reserved on 15 th December, 2016 Pronounced on 15 th March, 2017

Judgment :- (Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1 This review petition seeks a review of our order passed on

6th May, 2016 in the above writ petition.

2 The judgment delivered by us itself records as to how on the

prior occasion this court had examined the issues raised by the

present petitioners. The attempt of the petitioners was to seek a

rehearing of the same issues, which were concluded by the earlier

orders of this court. Therefore, in our detailed judgment, we had

applied the same parameters that are applied for deciding review

petitions. Now, the judgment we delivered in the writ petition is

sought to be reviewed by the present proceedings. The writ

petition projected the grievance and stated to be of common

helpless citizens in not being able to file petitions and applications

in Marathi language in this court. The plea of alleged

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

discrimination and differential treatment to litigants who wish to

file proceedings in Marathi language and argue them in that

language was squarely raised. The argument that Marathi being

the language of the State, a petitioner/party appearing in person

must be allowed to file and institute petitions/applications in

Marathi language and equally to argue them in Marathi language

was noted and duly considered. In the earlier round, on such a

grievance, a detailed judgment and order was passed in Writ

Petition No. 10972 of 2015 (the writ petition on which the

judgment and order under review was passed).

3 Now the petitioners in the present review petition urge that

they were not granted a complete opportunity of espousing their

cause and elaborating their grievances. The review petitioners

would submit that the question and issue of larger public interest

is of access to justice. Access to justice is denied if a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not allowed to be

filed with pleadings in Marathi language. That was precisely the

grievance considered in the earlier round. We also found, from a

perusal of the present review petition, that once again the very

grievance is raised. The petitioners refer to their written

arguments tendered during the course of the hearing of Writ

Petition No.10972 of 2015. The petitioners state that there are

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

factual errors and mistakes in the judgment. They highlight in

para 9.1 the fact that the citations and judgments tendered by the

petitioners have not been referred by this court. There is also no

reference to the plea raised by the petitioners on the applicability

and interpretation of Articles 350 and 39A of the Constitution of

India. Similarly, there are other errors and as highlighted in the

sub-paras of para 9.1.

4 We do not see how we can consider these averments as set

out in the petition in our limited review jurisdiction. Equally, the

grounds set out in para 10.2 are not enough to enable us to

exercise our review jurisdiction. If the judgment and order under

review contains errors of law apparent on the face of the record,

then, depending upon other conditions being satisfied, possibly,

the review jurisdiction may be exercised. However, the grounds

as raised do not point towards any error of law apparent on the

face of the record. The grounds are that the court could not have

disposed of the writ petition in the manner done or the court

could not have taken into consideration the points which were

never argued or exclude from consideration the points which

were specifically argued. Similarly, the court could not have

reserved the judgment with regard to Part II of Writ Petition No.

10972 of 2015.

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

5 The petitioner Common Citizen of India (Common Man) and

another, therefore, seek review of our judgment and order on the

above grounds.

6 We have heard the review petitioner appearing in person.

Mr. Rakesh Agrawal tendered before us written arguments and

which refer to the above pleas raised in the review and main

petition. The paragraphs of the review petition are once again

referred in the written arguments. Once again, it is stated as to

how the Indian Constitution guarantees access to justice. It

guarantees justice to all irrespective of their economic and social

status. According to the review petitioners, if that is to be made

meaningful and purposeful, then, the Middle Class Income Group

Legal Aid Scheme has to be either re-framed or the Government

of Maharashtra should be directed to make a better scheme. In

the absence of such a scheme, parties like the petitioners suffer

injustice.

7 In the review petition, it is stated that the judgment and

order under review is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The very same ground, as raised in the review petition in para

10.2 is reiterated at page 2 of the written arguments. Secondly,

the Division Bench should not have disposed of the writ petition

in the absence of respondent nos. 2 to 6. Thirdly, the judgment

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

and order under review is contrary to the pleadings and the

prayers. Then, a plea is raised in para 2 of the written arguments

about the principles of natural justice being violated. That

pertains to Part II of Writ Petition No. 10972 of 2015.

8 We have perused these written arguments and the extracts

of the judgments relied upon. Essentially, what is projected in the

written arguments is that in the earlier round, one of the writ

petitions filed by the petitioners was heard by a Bench to which

one of us (S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party. Therefore, the

writ petition, in which the judgment and order under review was

passed, should not have been assigned to him. However, the

petitioners forget that they appeared before the Bench to which

the matter was assigned and argued the petition on merits as

well.

9 We do not see how we can entertain these pleas. We also do

not know how, if the petitioners feel that citizens of India and

residents of Maharashtra are handicapped because they cannot

file petitions in the language of the State nor argue them, can they

make a request by Civil Application No. 94 of 2016 for an in-

camera hearing and recording of the review proceedings. That

civil application is in English and it seeks to highlight as to how

for a free and fair trial, the instant review petition should be

heard in-camera.

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

10 We have also carefully perused the citations and which have

been tendered during the course of the arguments on this

review petition. On a careful perusal of the entire material, we

are of the opinion that in review jurisdiction we cannot have a

rehearing of the main cause. That cause is now decided and

finally by our judgment and order under review. The judgment

and order under review, in the opinion of the applicant/party in-

person may be erroneous on facts and law. However, that is not

enough for us to review our judgment and order. In review

jurisdiction we cannot decide once again the question whether the

materials produced by the petitioners/applicants were enough to

grant the reliefs sought in Writ Petition No. 10972 of 2015. If the

materials were adequate and the reliefs should have been

granted, then that is a grievance which the petitioner can make in

appellate proceedings before a higher court. We do not see how

we can lose sight of the distinction expressly made in law,

namely, a judgment and order under review containing errors of

law apparent on the face of the record and the judgment and

order under review being erroneous on merits. The latter plea,

which is essentially raised and pressed repeatedly cannot be

taken cognizance and note of in review jurisdiction. The

difference between review and appeal has to be borne in mind and

cannot be lost sight of. Applying the settled parameters, we do

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

not think that the review petition can be entertained. It is

accordingly dismissed.

11 We would have been justified in imposing costs on the party

appearing in person. He has not only repeatedly raised the same

issue and involved in substantive proceedings filed earlier and

which were transferred for hearing and decision to the Principal

Seat, but once again in review jurisdiction. As a final indulgence,

we do not impose heavy costs on him presently, but caution him

that such an exercise not only harms the larger public interest as

precious judicial time of this court is wasted, but defeats the cause

and issues raised in the writ petition, wherein the judgment and

order under review is passed. This court has cautioned the

applicants in the earlier round that the forum where they can

press their demand that the language of the State should be the

language of the High Court is not this court (see Article 348).

Similarly, if any existing legal aid and advise scheme ought to be

more litigant-friendly, then as well, the forum for seeking such

relief, as held earlier, is not this court. Both views expressed by

this court may be erroneous, as is assumed by the petitioners, but

the forum to have them set aside or reversed is not this court but

an appellate court. Hence, by administering this caution and

warning that hereafter such litigation would not only be not

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

entertained, but would be dismissed with heavy costs, we refrain

from passing any order as to costs in the review petition.

12 At this stage, the party-in-person relies on Article 134A of

the Constitution of India and submits that this Court, on oral

application made by him, determine the question whether a

certificate of the nature referred in clause (1) of Article 132 or

clause (1) of Article 134 or, as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of

clause (1) of Article 134 may be given in respect of this case.

13 First of all, we find that the review petitioner, who is

appearing in person, is not clear as to which certificate he seeks.

We proceed on the footing that he desires that this Court should

state a substantial question of law as to interpretation of this

Constitution.

14 He prays for issuance of certificate on the basis that this

case involves a substantial question of law of general importance

and that we should record an opinion that it needs to be decided

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15 The order that we have pronounced today is passed on a

Review Petition. The main judgment was sought to be reviewed on

J.V.Salunke,PA

Judgment-RPWST.15883.2016-gp.doc

the grounds which were found by us not to be sufficient enough to

exercise our review jurisdiction. We do not think from such an

order, any substantial question of law, either as to interpretation

of the Constitution or of general importance arises and which

needs to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

16 Hence, the request for issuance of the certificate is rejected.

    (G.S.PATEL, J.)                 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)





 J.V.Salunke,PA