Bombay High Court
Arvind Virji Gala vs Chief Executive Officer Slum ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:21161
33-rpw-59-2024.doc
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.59 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8513 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3869 OF 2024
Arvind Virji Gala ... Petitioner
V/s.
Chief Executive Officer Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Swapnil Bangur a/w Mr. Bhavik Lalan a/w Ms.
Preeti Gada a/w Ms. Vanshika Mahajan for the
Petitioner-Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Patil i/b Mr. Vijay Patil, for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 (SRA).
Mr. J. G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w Ms. Ashwini Jadhav for
Respondent No.6 (AGRC).
Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Rachna Mamnani a/w
Ms. Amita Parab for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MAY 7, 2024
P.C.:
1. The petitioner has filed present review petition on two
grounds. First is that, on the date of passing of order, the petitioner
was not having possession of crucial documents which has effect of
ousting jurisdiction of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. Even
33-rpw-59-2024.doc
otherwise, the Competent Authority under Section 33 of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 had no power of petitioner's eviction as
the parties were already put in possession of the property and
parties have sold the property.
2. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that
the crucial documents were not available with the petitioner on
the date of passing of order. Such argument cannot be made in
review petition as the scope of the review petition is to ascertain
whether such order suffers from error apparent on the face of
record. Parameters for exercise of review jurisdiction have been
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs.
Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 78.
The Apex Court has held that the error apparent on the face of
record is such error which strikes just by looking at the order and
which does not require long drawn process of reasoning. It is also
held that seeking review on the ground that petitioner had not
highlighted all aspects of the case or could have argued more
forcefully or cited binding precedents to get favourable judgment
is not permissible. To adjudicate on the issues raised by the
petitioner, it would be necessary to reconsider the petition on
merits and would be required to consider material which was not
placed before this Court at the time of passing of order under
review which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
3. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, such argument
was not made before this Court while passing the order. Based on
33-rpw-59-2024.doc
submissions made by the parties, this Court adjudicated rights of
the parties. If the argument which is now made by the petitioner
was available to the petitioner on the date of passing of order and
such argument is not referred or considered by the Court in the
order, this will not constitute error on the face of record
contemplated Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
4. Hence, review petition is dismissed. No costs.
5. Since, the ad-interim relief granted by this Court is not on
merits, no case for extension is made out.
6. In view of dismissal of review petition the interim
applications stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
