Bengal Tools Limited vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2763 Cal

12.05.2022
Court No.38
Item No.2
SB


                          RVW 75 of 2020
                               with
                           CAN 1 of 2020
                                +
                           CAN 2 of 2020


               In the matter of : Bengal Tools Limited


                     Ms. Sutapa Sanyal
                     Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty
                     Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee
                     Ms. R. Manna                        ... for the petitioner


                     Mr. Probal Mukherjee
                     Mr. Snehashis Sen                   ... for the KOPT



                     The petitioner seeks review of a judgment and order

              dated 17 August, 2020 ('the order').

                     By the order, a revisional application against an order

              dated 22 July, 2020 passed by the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port

              Trust in proceeding no.1743/D of 2019 (Board of Trustees of

              the Port of Kolkata vs. Bengal Tools Ltd.) was dismissed in

              view of the alternative, efficacious, statutory remedy available

              to the petitioner.

                     The petitioner insists that a review is called for on the

              ground that there has been a violation of the principles of

              natural justice which would materially affect the outcome of the

              petition.

                     According to the petitioner, the order is liable to be

              reviewed primarily on the ground of violation of principles of
                                 2




natural justice. It is further alleged that there is also the

question of limitation which has not been addressed by the

Estate Officer.

       The respondent is represented and relies on the orders

passed by the Estate Officer to demonstrate that the petitioner

had full notice and participated in the proceedings before the

Estate Officer. It is further alleged that the Estate Officer has

also adjudicated upon the question of limitation. It is further

urged by the respondent that, there are staggering outstanding

rental arrears in respect of the subject premises which was

being occupied by the petitioner. Hence, there is no reason to

interfere with the order.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of

the parties.

It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a

review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the

purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The

normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is

final, and departure from that principle is justified only when

circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make

it necessary to do so. Review is not a rehearing of an original

matter.

I find that the grounds urged by the petitioner do not

constitute any grounds warranting review of the order. By the

order, the revisional application filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed on the ground of maintainability and on the ground

that the petitioner has a statutory, alternative, efficacious

remedy under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupant) Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. I also

find that even on the ground of natural justice, the petitioner

has been unable to demonstrate that the order is liable to be

reviewed. In view of the aforesaid, the order does not call for

revisiting particularly in the light of the grounds which have

been urged by the petitioner.

Accordingly, RVW 75 of 2020 alongwith all connected

applications stand dismissed.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)