Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohammad Shah vs State Of Jk And Others on 15 April, 2021
Sr. No.203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
RPLPA No.30/2016
Ghulam Mohammad Shah ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
Through: Mr. H. Furrahi, Advocate.
Vs.
State of JK and others. ....Respondent(s)
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
15.04.2021
01. This review petition has been preferred seeking review of the judgment
and order dated 21.10.2016 passed in LPA No.130/2016. By virtue of the order
which is sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 16.05.2016 passed
in SWP No.467/2016.
02. The case of the petitioner before the writ court was that he was appointed
on the post of Lambardar for village Pushwari Machil District Kupwara on
02.05.1990 and is discharging his duties with utmost dedication. His
continuance against the post of Lambardar is governed by J&K Lambardari
Act, 1972 and J&K Lambardari Rules, 1980. Further case of the petitioner was
that on the basis of some frivolous complaint, respondent nos. 3 and 4 directed
the petitioner to discontinue for his duties of village Lambardar without stating
any reasons or giving opportunity of hearing. The said action being contrary to
the Rules and Regulations, writ petition was filed by the appellant by
contending that the decision taken not to permit him to continue as village
headman is arbitrary, as without conducting enquiry and with malice such
action was taken.
03. The contentions raised before the writ court by the petitioner were
rejected by the writ court in terms of judgment and order dated 16.05.2016
passed in SWP No.467/2016 and against this order of the writ court, LPA
No.130/2016 was filed by the petitioner and the Division Bench of this Court
upheld the judgment of the writ court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
by virtue of order dated 21.10.2016. It is this order of the Division Bench,
review of which is sought by the petitioner by the medium of the present
petition.
04. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
05. We are of the opinion that this review petition is not maintainable on the
ground that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking review of the order
21.10.2016 have already been dealt with in the judgment and order of the writ
court as well in the order sought to be reviewed.
06. The power of review can be pressed into service only when there is some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is very
limited and cannot be exercised even if order/ judgment is erroneous.
07. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, while
dealing with the issue, the Apex Court detailed the grounds on which a review
is maintainable and otherwise. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, it was
held as under:-
"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the
judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as
the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles
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, AIR 1992 PC 112 and approved by this Court
in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, 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.,(2013) 8 SCC 337.
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 les only for patent
error.
vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be
a ground of 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."
08. In the light of the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex
Court, we are of the opinion that this review petition is not maintainable as the
counsel for the review petitioner has failed to project any error apparent on the
face of record which could justify review of the judgment and order dated
21.10.2016 passed in LPA No.130/2016.
09. For the aforesaid reasons this review petition is found to be without merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) (TASHI RABSTAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar
15.04.2021
Abdul Qayoom, PS
ABDUL QAYOOM LONE
2021.04.19 11:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
