Gauhati High Court
Jahirul Islam vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 27 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010180752025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Review Pet/8871/2025
Linked Case :
JAHIRUL ISLAM
S/O LATE NAIMUL ISLAM
R/O VILL. SILPUKHURI
P.O. SILPUKHURI
P.S. IKIRBHETA
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782123
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 6
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K TALUKDAR
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
27-08-2025
Heard Shri S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant, who by means
of this application has sought for review of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed
in WP(C)/941/2025.
The learned counsel, Shri Talukdar has submitted that after passing of this
judgment, a Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment dated 03.04.2025
whereby there is an observation for consideration of the cases of those writ
petitioners irrespective of the Office Memorandum of the Government dated
18.09.2024.
Shri N. Goswami, the learned State Counsel has however submitted that no
ground for review has been made out.
The principles governing review are well settled in a catena of decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V
Narayana Reddy & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the earlier principles laid down in the case of
Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320
wherein the principles laid down are extracted herein below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
Page No.# 3/5
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same
principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese &
Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
Page No.# 4/5
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
In the instant case, the ground of review is based upon a judgment of a
Coordinate Bench dated 03.04.2025.
The observation made by the Coordinate Bench is of the subsequent date
and cannot be a ground for review.
In any case, the judgment dated 21.02.2025 of which review has been
sought for is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC
219.
Though it appears that the State Government has formulated an Office
Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 based on the aforesaid judgement, the application of
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of
Debabrata Tiwari (supra) is of relevance.
Page No.# 5/5
In the considered opinion of this Court, the present grounds may not be
sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
