State Of Hp And Ors vs Kailash Chand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1511 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                                  RP No. 66 of 2020
                                                               Date of Decision: 2.3.2021
    _______________________________________________________




                                                                         .
                                               [





    State of HP and Ors.                                                     ......Petitioners.
                                             Versus
    Kailash Chand                                                            ....Respondent.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    For the petitioners:           Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General,





                                   with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
    For the respondent:            Nemo.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present review petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and

Section 114 of the CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to review

judgment dated 25.8.2020, passed by this Court in CWP No.4329 of 2019, titled

Kailash Chand V. State of H.P., whereby this Court while disposing of the writ petition

directed the respondents to take appropriate steps towards implementation of the

order/judgment dated 18.9.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative

Tribunal in OA No. 5581 of 2015, positively, within a period of four weeks from the

date of passing of the order, if not already implemented.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since

order/judgment dated 18.9.2017, passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 5581 of 2017 has

been challenged by the State before this court by way of CWP No. 3371/2020, same

cannot be implemented.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused

averments contained in the petition, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

judgment sought to be reviewed and as such, no interference is warranted. The

review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already

considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing

.

of the case and finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the

entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on

the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964

SC 1372, held:

"11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one

could point to the error and say here is a substantial point

of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out....." (P.1377)

4. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order,

undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say

that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply

because the party wants decision to be otherwise.

5. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

    2nd March, 2021                                          ( Sandeep Sharma ),
    manjit                                                        Judge.