Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And 9 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 389 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And 9 Ors on 9 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                      Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010060512025




                                                             undefined

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

                       Case No. : Review.Pet./38/2025

         KAMOLESH DAS AND 3 ORS
         S/O PRONOBESH SHIL, R/O GAURIPUR, WARD NO 2, P.O. AND P.S.
         GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783331

         2: SHAHAJAHAN RAHMAN

          S/O AFIZUR RAHMAN
          VILL. CHAGALCHARA PT III
          P.S. DHUBRI
          DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM
          PIN 783331

         3: MOBASHIR ALOM

          S/O TAZUDDIN AHMED
          R/O BIDYAPARA PT 2
          COLLEGE ROAD
          P.S. DHUBRI
          DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM
          PIN 783301

         4: AMINUR RAHMAN PRADHANI

          S/O ACHIM UDDIN PRADHANI
          VILL. DEBOTTAR HASDOHA PT 6
          PIN 78333

         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS
         TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
         HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110011
                                                          Page No.# 2/9


2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (PH)
 DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES
 GOVT. OF INDIA
 NIRMAN BHAWAN
 NEW DELHI 110011

3:DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES GOVT. OF INDIA
 NIRMAN BHAWAN
 NEW DELHI 110011

4:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006

5:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06

6:DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI 36

7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DHUBRI
P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN 783301

8:JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CUM MEMBER SECY.
 DIST. HEALTH SOCIETY
 DHUBRI DIST.
 P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
 PIN 783301

9:THE SUPERINTENDENT

DHUBRI CIVIL HOSPITAL
                                                                       Page No.# 3/9

            DHUBRI
            DIST. DHUBRI
            (ASSAM)
            PIN 783324

            10:HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SOCIETY

            DHUBRI CIVIL HOSPITAL
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
            DHUBRI
            P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI
            ASSAM
            PIN 78330




                                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI


Advocate for the applicants     : Shri AZ Ahmed.

Advocate for the respondents    : Shri DP Borah, SC- Health Deptt.

Date of hearing           : 09.05.2025.

Date of Judgment          : 09.05.2025.




                                JUDGEMENT & ORDER

Heard Shri AZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Shri D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department.

2. By the present application, the applicants, who were the writ petitioners in the WP(C)/661/2020 have prayed for review of the order dated 28.02.2025 by which the said writ petition along with certain other writ petitions were Page No.# 4/9

dismissed.

3. Before going to the grounds set forth in the application for review, it would be apposite to remind ourselves the parameters and contours in which an application for review may be held to be maintainable.

4. The principles governing review are well settled. In a recent decision dated 18.08.2022 reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, (S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors. ) a three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant case laws has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra) which are as follows:

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of

review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

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 Page No.# 5/9

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.

(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.

Page No.# 6/9

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative."

5. The writ petitions were pertaining to a broad claim of salaries of the Staff of the Burn Unit of the Dhubri Civil Hospital, as well asthe continuation of their services. The common case projected by the writ petitioners was that an MoU was signed between the State and Central Government in the year 2020 for the establishment of Burn Units in certain hospitals, including the Dhubri Civil Hospital. The MoU had contemplated forming of a Hospital Management Society and it is the said Hospital Management Society which had initiated the recruitment and made the appointment. It is, however, a matter of fact that the Deputy Commissioner of the District was the ex-officio Chairman of the Society and the Joint Director Healthfunctioned as the Secretary and therefore the recruitment was done under their signatures. Consequently, a conscious decision was taken for constructing the Dhubri Medical College and Hospital and to facilitatethe same, the Civil Hospital in question was demolished and subsequently the Dhubri Medical College and Hospital has been constructed in which a Burn Unit is also there. The aforesaid facts were taken into consideration and this Court vide the said judgment had dismissed the writ petitions. However, so far as the salaries for three petitioners in WP(C)/7189/2015 were concerned, certain observations were made.

6. ShriAhmed, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there are materials on record to show that the entire process of recruitment was done by the Department and not by the Society. He has also submitted that this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 28.02.2025 had made some observations that the Page No.# 7/9

recruitment was done by the Hospital ManagementSociety and not by the Department, with further observations that till 31.3.2021, the salaries were paid after which, the services were discontinued. It was also observed by this Court that the project in question was a pilot project. The non-existence of the Hospital Management Society after demolition of the Civil Hospital in Dhubri has also been observed.

7. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that mere dismantling of the building would not amount to discontinuation of the services of the applicants and in any case, such discontinuation was stayed by an order of this Court passed in the year 2021. He has reiterated that the applicants were appointed by the Department.

8. The learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional affidavit filed in the writ petition by the Director of Health Services, respondent no. 6, in which a statement was made that the advertisement dated 1.1.2014 was jointly issued by the District Commissioner and the Joint Director Health which would show that the recruitment was done by the Department. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to various communications exchanged between the Directorate and the Department, to show that the entire process was one of the Department. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2025 is liable to be reviewed as certain error has crept in the same.

9. Per contra, Shri Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has submitted that the scope for reviewing of an order is very limited and confined to the parameters laid down in Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It is submitted that the present application does not fall within the exceptional circumstances to maintain a review. He has also clarified Page No.# 8/9

that though the recruitment appears to have been done under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director Health, they were acting as Office Bearers of the Hospital Management Committee which was duly constituted as per the MoU. He has also submitted that the other aspects of the contention made in the review have been dealt with by this Court in the order dated 28.02.2025 and therefore, no case for review is made of out.

10. As indicated above, the ambit and powers which a Court can exercise for review have been well defined. It is needless to reiterate that it is only on limited grounds where a review Court could exercise its powers which are-

a. Detecting an error apparent on the face of the record,

b. Discovery of facts which were not within the knowledge of the party even by exercise of due diligence and

c. Sufficient reasons.

Though the third ground is subjective in nature, the requirement of sufficiency has to be construed in a strict manner as otherwise the object to bring litigations to a finality would be defeated.

11. In the instant case, the primary contention of the applicants is that the recruitment process was done by the Department. Though the involvement of the Joint Director Health and the Deputy Commissioner of the District is apparent, such involvement was only in the capacity of Chairman and Secretary of the Hospital Management Society. In fact, the recruitment notice which has been annexed would show that it was the Hospital Management Society, Dhubri which had issued the same and the appointments were also made by the said Society which has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the Society. The issue regarding stay of the discontinuation by this Court has been Page No.# 9/9

dealt with in detail in the aforesaid order and cannot be reopened by this Court in an application for review as the findings are on the merits of the case.

12. This Court has also found that the grounds sought to be urged in support of the review are not fresh grounds, but are grounds which were taken in the writ proceedings, duly considered and answered on merits and therefore, it would not be a fit case wherein the powers of review are to be exercised, more so when this Court has not noticed any error apparent on the face of the reports.

13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present application for review is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant