Calcutta High Court
Swapan Kumar Dey vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 13 September, 2022
OD-27
ORDER SHEET
RVWO/18/2022
IA No. GA/1/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SWAPAN KUMAR DEY
-VS-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date : September 13, 2022.
Appearance:
Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, Adv.
Sk. Samim Akhter, Adv.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Adv.
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu, Adv.
... for the State
The Court: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order dated May 2, 2022 passed in WPO/1065/2015 suffers from error
apparent on the face of the record. It is contended that while deciding the
fate of the second application for issuance of permit made by the petitioner,
it was never considered by the Court that there was a prior application of
similar tune dated May 30, 2007 which was kept pending by the
authorities all along. It is submitted that in the absence of any direction in
respect of the prior application, the order under review is palpably vitiated
by an error apparent on the face of the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the
yardsticks stipulated repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court for granting review are not satisfied in the present case.
In this context, learned counsel cites Parsion Devi and Others vs.
Sumitri Devi and Others reported at (1997) 8 SCC 715. The Supreme Court
in the said judgment, inter alia, observed that under Order 47 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error
which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning,
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the review jurisdiction it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". The
Supreme Court further held that a review petition, it must be remembered,
has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
In the present case, the arguments made by the writ petitioner
are being advanced for the first time. Neither in the writ petition, in
connection with which the order under review was passed, nor the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the relevant juncture
shows that any relief whatsoever was prayed in respect of any prior
pending application dated May 30, 2007.
Hence, the present review application typically comes within the
periphery of the applications which are basically applications for rehearing
and correction, as depicted by the Supreme Court in the cited judgment.
That apart, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the State that
on the previous occasion when the matter came up before a Co-ordinate
Bench, the petitioner's counsel clearly submitted that the petitioner's fresh
application (which is the second application adjudicated in the order under
review) be considered by the authorities. As such, at this juncture, long
after the order is passed, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to
cite the alleged pendency of a previous application, that too, in similar tune
with the one which was rejected by the authorities, as a ground for
recalling and setting aside the order under review.
The parameters and tests of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure are equally applicable in the present case. Since none of the
yardsticks mentioned therein have been satisfied in the present case, there
is no scope of entertaining or allowing the present review application.
Accordingly, RVWO/18/2022 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
sp3
