Karnataka High Court
Shri Ramesh M R (Senior Citizen) vs The Chairman /Secretary on 8 January, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:902
RP No. 273 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 273 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMESH M R (SENIOR CITIZEN)
S/O LATE M.P.RADHAKRISHNAIAH SETTY,
AGED 64 YEARS
NO.K-139, GROUND FLOOR,
19TH "A" MAIN ROAD,
I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH M.R., PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN /SECRETARY
SHIRDI SAI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K ANEKAL,
Location: HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 562 106
OF KARNATAKA
2. THE PRINCIPAL
SHIRDI SAI ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
ANEKAL,
BENGALURU - 562 106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.V. GUNJAL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
PRAYING TO I. REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2021 MADE IN
W.P.14219/2018 (S-RES) BY GRANTING THE FULL RELIEF IN THE
WRIT PETITION OF THE PETITIONER; II. GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF OR RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:902
RP No. 273 of 2022
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TOGETHER WITH AN ORDER AS TO
COSTS ON THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a review of the
order dated 14.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.14219/2018.
2. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the respondent has disposed
the matter on its merit, owing to the conduct of the petitioner,
which this Court found that it was approbation and reprobation.
3. The petitioner-in-person has now preferred the
subject review petition contending that the Educational
Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in
EAT No.2/2009 to decide the issue of resignation.
4. This Court, has decided the matter on its merit on
the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner-in-person has preferred the subject review
petition and seeks to make submissions on the score that the
order in W.P.No.14219/2018 is erroneous and want to submit
NC: 2024:KHC:902
all over again. Therefore, review of the petition would amount
to rehearing the entire matter in the garb of such review.
5. Entertainment of the subject review petition would
run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati1, wherein it has held as follows:
"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.
(2013) 8 SCC 320
NC: 2024:KHC:902
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:902
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the
same relief sought at the time of arguing the main
matter had been negatived."
6. The review petition would not be entertainable, in
the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and is
therefore, turned down.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the review petition
stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of
such remedy, as is available in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
