Delhi High Court
Dr. A.K. Belwal vs Uoi & Ors. on 16 July, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RA No. 269/2010 in WP(C ) No. 2792/2010
% Date of Decision: 16.07.2010
Dr. A.K. Belwal .... Petitioner
Through Dr. A.K. Belwal, petitioner in person
Versus
UOI & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No. 8739/2010
This is an application by the petitioner seeking condonation of
delay of seven days in filing the review petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the
delay of seven days in filing the review application is condoned.
RA No. 269/2010
The petitioner has sought review of order dated 27th April, 2010
dismissing the petition seeking quashing of a letter written by Sh. A.K.
Bhardwaj, Senior Central Govt. counsel addressed to Ms. Mala Dutt,
Director, IES Cadre dated 1st August, 2005 on the ground that she was
indimated by the counsel that the Court has orally asked him that the
petitioner's period is to be regularized in accordance with law and it is
not necessary to treat the period as 'spent on duty' or even dies non and
consequently to finalize the departmental inquiry and to take a final
decision.
The petitioner had sought quashing of the communication by the
Senior Central Govt. counsel to the official of the Govt., i.e., Ms. Mala
Dutt on the ground that no Court says anything orally and no oral
directions could be given and consequently, the intimation by the
Senior Central Govt. counsel to the official, Director, IES Cadre is
incorrect and was liable to be quashed.
This Court, after noticing that a writ petition being WP(C) No.
10978/2005 was filed where an interim order was passed holding that
after petitioner joining at Simla, the necessary orders for regularization
of the petitioner's service for the period of his absence had to be passed
in accordance with law. Although, an interim order was passed,
however, later on the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22nd
September, 2005.
The petitioner had sought review of order dated 22nd September,
2005, which was also dismissed in RA 129/2008 by order dated 4th
April, 2004. The petitioner had also filed a contempt petition being
Cont. Cas. (C) No. 106/2010 seeking quashing of alleged notes/letters
and all the actions taken consequent to such letters and for initiation of
contempt proceedings against Ms. Mala Dutt, the former Director, IES
Cadre and Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Senior Central Govt. counsel, which was
also dismissed by order dated 18th February, 2010.
Dismissal of writ petition, review petition and contempt petition
did not dissuaded the petitioner from filing another contempt petition
being Cont. Cas. No. 163/2010 against Ms. Mala Dutt, which was also
dismissed by order dated 16th March, 2010. The petitioner, thereafter,
filed yet another writ petition being WP(C) No. 2792/2010, which was
dismissed by this Court by order dated 27th April, 2010 and in the
circumstances, on account of frivolous litigation initiated by the
petitioner, the cost was also imposed while dismissing the writ petition
no. 2792 of 2010.
The petitioner has now sought review of the said order on the
same grounds, which were raised in WP (C) No. 2792/2010 titled as Dr.
A.K. Belwal Vs. Union of India and Ors. The petitioner has contended
that in the letter dated 1st August, 2005, the counsel had written that
he was intimated orally by the Court that the Department should
finalize the inquiry immediately and take a final decision. The
petitioner is reiterating his plea that no Court gives any oral directions
as the Court speaks through its order and any such oral order is
perverse. In the circumstances, it is contended that it is a case of clear
misconduct of Senior Central Govt. counsel Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj, who
had misused the process of law through putting words in the mouth of
the Court and therefore, the order dated 27th April, 2010 deserves to be
reviewed. In the circumstances, it is sought that WP(C) No. 2792/2010
be restored and reliefs claimed in the prayer clause may be granted and
costs imposed upon the petitioner be also waived of.
It is a settled law that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. An order can be reviewed 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 exercise of
power of review by the Court. In exercise of jurisdiction for review of
order, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and
corrected.
A review jurisdiction has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review cannot be sought merely
for fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken
earlier. The power of a review can be exercised only for correction of a
patent error of law or fact which stays in the face without any elaborate
arguments being needed for establishing it.
Attempt of the applicant by filing the present application is only
to re-agitate the issue that the Senior Central Govt. counsel Mr. A.K.
Bhardwaj could not communicate in his communication dated 1st
August, 2005 that the Court has orally observed that the disciplinary
proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. The plea of the
petitioner that such oral observations could not be made by the Court
and thus, Senior Central Govt. counsel has misled and has committed
contempt of Court has been rejected repeatedly in various petitions filed
by the petitioner.
In the circumstances, there is no error apparent in the order
dated 27th April, 2010 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition
with costs.
Therefore, the order dated 27th April, 2010 does not have any
patent error and the same cannot be set aside. In the facts and
circumstances, on account of frivolous petitions filed by the petitioner,
he is also not entitled for waiving of the costs imposed on him vide order
dated 27th April, 2010.
The application for review is, therefore, without any merit and it
is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
July 16, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
