Sandip Rupchand Salve vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6837 Bom

                                                              rast1119.20
                                        1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD



        REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1119 OF 2020
                            IN
              WRIT PETITION NO.14476 OF 2019

 Sandip S/o Rupchand Salve,
 Age-30 years, Occu:Business,
 R/o-Chowka,
 Tq, & Dist-Aurangabad
                                                      ...APPLICANT

        VERSUS

 1) The Union of India,
    Through its Ministry of
    Petroleum, Delhi,

 2) The General Manager,
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Aurangabad, Indian Oil Bhavan,
    G-09, Ali Yavar Jang Marg,
    Bandra(East), Mumbai,

 3) The Deputy General Manager,
    (R.S.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
    Aurangabad Divisional Office,
    Plot No.99, Indian Oil Bhavan,
    Jyotinagar, Aurangabad.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

                ...
    Mr.Yashodeep P. Deshmukh Advocate h/f. Mr. A.D. Kaware
    Advocate for Applicant.
    Mr.A.P. Bhandari Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
                ...




::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 10:41:32 :::
                                                                    rast1119.20
                                         2


                CORAM: V.K. JADHAV AND
                       ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

                 DATE :        29th APRIL, 2021

 ORDER :

1. This is an application moved by the petitioner in

disposed of Writ Petition No. 14476 of 2019 for review of the

Judgment dated 9th December 2019 passed in said Writ Petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective

parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant

herein had filed the Writ Petition No. 14476 of 2019 challenging

the communication dated 22nd November 2019 issued by the

respondent - Indian Oil Corporation, holding the applicant

ineligible for award of retail outlet (petrol pump dealership) for

the location Chowka, on either side of Aurangabad - Phulambri

road, on the ground that land area offered by the applicant is

not as per requirement of the advertisement.

4. This Court after recording the contentions raised by

the applicant and after considering the relevant guidelines and

rast1119.20

provisions in respect of requirement of land, dismissed the Writ

Petition vide oral Judgment dated 9 th December 2019. The said

Judgment is sought to be reviewed by the present Application.

5. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant submits that the requirement as per the advertisement

was of 1575 square meters of the land, whereas the land offered

by the applicant was 2000 square meters and therefore, the

applicant fulfills the requirement as per the advertisement. It is

submitted that the said point was not considered by this Court

while dismissing the Writ Petition.

6. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant, in alternative, submits that as alleged 100 square

meters land is less than the required land area as per the norms

of the respondent - Oil Company and as held by this Court vide

Judgment dated 9th December 2019, the applicant is having that

much land adjoining to the land in question, which the applicant

can offer to fulfill the land area requirement.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - Oil Company argues that the points raised in the

rast1119.20

Review Application were argued and those were considered and

therefore Review Application is not maintainable.

8. At the outset, we are of the considered view that the

learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the applicant

cannot argue the present application, as the learned counsel who

appeared when the Writ Petition was finally heard on

9th December 2019 was different and the learned counsel who is

now appearing was not even present at the time of argument in

Writ Petition. In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and

another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another 1, it has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that, when an appeal /

special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where

error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be

filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared

nor was party in the main case. It is further observed that it is

salutary to note that Court spends valuable time in deciding a

case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for

hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has

become, in recent times, a practice to file such review petitions

as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining

consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not 1 AIR 1997 SC 1005

rast1119.20

conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the

responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession.

9. However, though having cautious about the above

referred well settled position of law, we thought it proper to

decide the matter on merit and accordingly, we proceed to deal

with the Review Application on merit.

10. It is a settled law that review is permissible to

prevent the miscarriage of justice and correct the grave and

palpable error, apparent on the face of record, committed by it.

It may also be exercised on any analogous ground but it may not

be exercised on the ground of disagreement with the view of the

Judgment.

11. The submission of the learned counsel for the

applicant that the land area required as per the advertisement

was 1575 square meters, whereas land offered by him is 2000

square meters which is more than the land area required as per

the advertisement, therefore, declaring him ineligible on the

ground that land area is not as per the requirement of

advertisement is erroneous, was recorded in the Judgment dated

rast1119.20

9th December 2019 in Paragraph No.6 and it was answered in

Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the Judgment.

12. There is no dispute that the applicant offered 2000

square meters of land and in the advertisement requirement was

of 1575 square meters of land. However, as per the relevant

guidelines in respect of right of way as regards Cross-Sectional

Elements, it has already observed in the Judgment dated 9 th

December 2019 that after leaving 15 meters of additional land

as right of way which is required to be mandatorily left as per

Clause 6 of the guidelines relating to Cross-Sectional Elements,

the applicant does not fulfill the condition of land requirement.

13. This Court, as such while dismissing the Writ Petition

vide oral Judgment dated 9th December 2019, considered the

said argument and answered the same in the negative.

14. In that view of the matter, present application does

not fulfill pre-requisites to entertain the Review Application.

15. As regards the contention of the applicant that now

he is ready to offer additional land area to fulfill the requirement

rast1119.20

from the adjoining land, the said contention cannot be

considered in this Review Application. If applicant desires, he

may approach to the non-applicant Oil Company with such

request.

16. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the Review

Application.

17. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant draws

attention to Clause No. 3 of the communication dated 22 nd

November 2019 issued by the respondent - Oil Company and

which was impugned in the Writ Petition No. 14476 of 2019,

inter-alia stating that the candidature of the applicant may get

considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per

guidelines.

18. He submits that though it was mentioned that the

candidature of the applicant may get considered in Group 3

applicants, he was not considered.

19. In reply to the same, learned counsel appearing for

the Oil Company states that the said clause is not disturbed by

rast1119.20

this Court and therefore the right of the applicant to be

considered in Group 3 applicants is intact. In that view of the

matter, we do not want to observe anything in this regard.

20. Accordingly, Review Application is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

 [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]                               [V.K. JADHAV, J.]

 asb/APR21