Millo Pugang vs Rubu Po And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1483 Gua

GAHC010073382022




                 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
 (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
                         PRADESH)


                       Case No. : Review.Pet./76/2022


MILLO PUGANG
SURVEYOR OF WORKS (ELECTRO MECHANICAL) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
ENGINEER (WESTERN ZONE) DEPT.OF HYDRO POWER ITANAGAR, DIST
PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH



VERSUS


RUBU PO AND 2 ORS.
S/O LATE RUBU TANA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAJANG (LEMPIA) PO AND PS ZIRO, DIST LOWER
SUBANSIRI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH


2:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ITANAGAR
791111


3:THE COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF HYDRO POWER DEV. GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ITANAGA


Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K TIWARI

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, AP
 Linked Case : WA/15/2022



RUBU OPO
S/O LATE RUBU TANA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAJANG (LEMPIA) PO AND PS ZIRO
DIST LOWER SUBANSIRI
ARUNACHAL PRADESH


VERSUS


MILLO PUGANG AND 2 ORS.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EM) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (WZ)
DHPD
ITANAGAR
791111
DIST PAPUMPARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ITANAGAR
791111


3:THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH. ITANAGAR



Advocate for : MR. I CHOWDHURY SR ADV
Advocate for : GA
AP appearing for MILLO PUGANG AND 2 ORS.
                             BEFORE
                  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                              ORDER

06.05.2022

Heard Mr. A. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent no. 1.

This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 14.03.2022, passed by this court in WA No. 15/2022, whereby the writ appeal filed by the present respondent no. 1 was allowed.

By the aforesaid order under review, this court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in WP(C) 459 (AP)/2019 and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge with the request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the writ appellant (i.e. present respondent no. (1) as the writ appellant was a necessary party to the writ proceeding and the matter was decided by the learned Single Judge without hearing the writ appellant. Secondly, the writ petition had been decided on the basis of a "concession and agreement" arrived at between the parties and, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the learned Single Judge with the request to decide the matter on its merits.

Today this court has been informed that the writ petition is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and the matter has been fixed on 09.05.2022.

The scope of interference in a review petition is extremely limited. Even if the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the matters of review, the principles are applicable under the limited provision as given under Order XLVII Rule 1* of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the records which may call for our interference.

In view of the above, we find absolutely no scope for interference and, accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

                            JUDGE                              CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant




*
 ORDER XLVII - REVIEW

1. Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.