Kerala High Court

Suresh @ Mankunnil Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2023

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                 &

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945

                       WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

          SURESH @ MANKUNNIL SURESH
          AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR,
          MANIKUNNIL HOUSE, CHENNAPPARA, VIDHURA P.O.
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 551.

          BY ADV SANDHYA RAJU


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

    2     KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
          REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.O.
          TRIVANDRUM 695 033.


          TEKCHAND.V SR.G.P.


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

                                   :: 2 ::



                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April 2023

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

Ext.P4 order dated 27th March 2020 passed by the Kerala

State Human Rights Commission in Case

No.1870/11/12/2021.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition

reads as under:

2.1 Petitioner is stated to be a politician of repute who

served as the Vice Chairman of the Kerala State Youth

Welfare Board during the period 1987-1990. It is submitted

that on account of political rivalries, he was falsely

implicated in a cheating case.

2.2 Crime Number 289/1992 was registered under

Section 420IPC before the Alappuzha North Police Station

alleging that he had received an amount of Rs.3,000/- from

the defacto complainant for arranging a job at the tailoring

unit of the Kerala Khadi Welfare Workers. Consequent to

this, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 3 ::

later released on bail.

2.3 According to the petitioner, the arrest and

incarceration in a false case was extremely traumatic and

affected him in a grave manner. It is further submitted by

the petitioner that he was the General Secretary of

Rashtriya Lokdal India Committee when he was arrested

and implicated in the false case without any piece of

evidence. It was extremely humiliating for him as his

integrity had been questioned with the aim of discrediting

him and adversely impacting his political career.

2.4 On an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached

this court seeking to quash the entire proceedings relating

to the abovesaid crime and this court, directed the

respondents to file charge sheet in a time bound manner.

However, in the year 2016, after 24 years from the date of

registration of the crime, aggrieved by the non filing of

charge sheet, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by filing W.P.(Crl)No.96/2016 with a prayer

to quash the entire proceedings in connection with the

above crime.

WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 4 ::

2.5 Later, from the counter affidavit filed by the first

respondent, petitioner came to understand that the crime

was closed in the year 2011 and the same was accepted by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Accepting the

above contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order

dated 5.12.2016 disposed of the case as infructuous.

2.6 Thereafter, petitioner approached the Kerala State

Human Rights Commission with a prayer to direct the

respondents - State of Kerala, represented by the Chief

Secretary and the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North

Police Station to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,00,000/- (rupees one

crores forty one lakh only) as compensation for the

hardships suffered by the petitioner because of the

unjustifiable acts of the respondents.

3. By Ext.P4 order, dated 27th March 2020 the Kerala

State Human Rights Commission dismissed Case

No.1870/11/12/2021.

4. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed on the

following grounds:

WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 5 ::

"A. The Petitioner submits that the order of Kerala State Human Rights Commission is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that the issue apprised before the Human Rights Commission was the issue relating to abuse of process of law resulting in a denial of liberty and eventual referral of the case. Thus in effect the respondent had been living as an accused since 2011 for a case which had been referred.

B. It is submitted that since 1992 to 2011 there had been no movement in the case despite there being a direction from the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that the petitioner accused was living under the weight of a fictitious accusation which had adversely affected his life amounted to grave violation of his right to life.

C. It is submitted that no limitation has been prescribed within the Protection of Human Rights Act. It is submitted that the actions of the public authorities reveal that it was a politically motivated act which led to his incarceration in jail for a few days. The fact that even after 24 years no charge sheet was filed, when the norm says 90 days reveal that the authorities were used as a tool for political vengeance. It is submitted that when public authorities in charge of law and order have been entrusted with a duty it becomes incumbent on them to ensure that the rules of natural justice be followed. It is submitted that grave violations occurred the case was referred after 19 years. As a forum for the Protection of Human Rights, the Hon'ble forum ought to have appreciated the case in the spirit of Protection of Human rights rather than technically disposing of the matter which amounts to denial of Right to Life.

D. It is submitted that a legitimate expectation is cast on the authorities that due intimation is provided to the parties about the status of their case especially one in which the petitioner was incarcerated. It is submitted that it was in the absence of the charge sheet being filed within the specified timeframe that made the petitioner approach the Supreme Court to learn that it WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 6 ::

had already been referred. It is submitted that 2 nd respondent body is a forum to cater to protection of the right to life and liberty of the citizens and are a barrier against the excesses of the Executive. By prima facie discarding the petition grave violations of principles of Natural Justice was caused."

5. Translated version of Ext.P4, order dated 27 th March

2020 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission

in Case No.1870/11/12/2021 reads thus:

Kerala State Human Rights Commission Vikas Bhavan, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. www.kshrc.kerala.gov.in phone:0471 +2307263 [email protected]

Case Number 1870/11/2021 Date: 27.03.2020

NOTICE

Sub: Kerala State Human Rights Commission- Disposal of the Complaint submitted by you- Intimation issued-Reg:-

Ref: Your Complaint dated 22.03.2021.

You are hereby informed that your Complaint is not acceptable/disposed of according to the reasons undermentioned.

1.As per Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act (1993), the State Human Rights Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

2. As per Section 36(2) of the Human Rights Act (1993) the Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.

3.The complaints shall also be disposed of as dismissed, according WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 7 ::

to the undermentioned regulations of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure)2001.

17.A. Not legible.

17.B. Vague, Anonymous Complaint, ie in pseudonym.

17.C. Contentless or frivolous.

17.F. If the complaint involves allegations which are civil in nature or dispute regarding Service, labor or Industrial dispute.

17.G. Complaints that do not raise any human rights violation;

17.H. If the subject matter in the complaint is pending under trial before any Court, or tribunal.

17.I. If the subject matter is adjudicated or decided by the National commission or a State Commission

17.J. If the complaint submitted is the copy of the complaint addressed to any other authority.

17.K. If the Petition is not duly signed or if the the original of the petition is not forwarded to the Commission.

17.L. The subject matter raised in the complaint is outside the Jurisdiction of the Commission.

4. The subject matter in the complaint is the matter to be considered by the Family Court.

5. Since the subject matter in the complaint is the matter to be considered by the Maintenanace Tribunal for Senior citizens presided over by the R.D.O., the complaint has been handed over to the R.D.O........... Contact the said office.

6. The complainant has not appeared continousely for the hearing of the case.

7. The complainant has withdrawn the complaint in his/her own volition.

8. Since the subject matter in the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, the complaint has been handed over to ...............for further action. Contact the said office.

Sd/-

For Registrar Sri/Smt. Suresh The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, The Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 are available in the official website of the commission.

Translated by : Bindu N R A S O Verified by : Assainar A, Head Translator WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 8 ::

6. Section 36(1) and (2) of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993 deals with the matters not subject to

jurisdiction of the Commission, which is extracted below:

"36. Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission.

(1) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed."

7. Reading of the above, makes it clear that the

National Human Rights Commission/State Human Rights

Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the

expiry of one year from the date on which the act

constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have

been committed.

8. It is evident from the materials available on record

that on 25.10.2011 the investigation of the case was

completed by the then Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North

Police Station and final report of the case was submitted WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 9 ::

before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Alappuzha for treating the case as further action dropped

(FAD) due to the lack of adequate evidence.

9. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that

considering the closure of the criminal proceedings in

question far back in the year 2011 and the acceptance of

such closure report by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Alappuzha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by

order dated 5.12.2016 disposed of the W.P.(Crl.)96/2016 as

infructuous.

10. Instant writ petition is filed seeking direction to

the second respondent - Kerala State Human Rights

Commission, represented by Member Secretary, to review

Ext.P4 order.

11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Section 10

of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which

stipulates the procedure to be regulated by the

Commission, which is reproduced below:

"10. Procedure to be regulated by the Commission. (1) The Commission shall meet at such time and place as the Chairperson may think fit.

WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 10 ::

[(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Commission shall have the power to lay down by regulations its own procedure.]

(3) All orders and decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Secretary-General or any other officer of the Commission duly authorised by the Chairperson in this behalf."

12. There is no specific provision which confer power

on the Kerala Human Rights Commission to review its own

order. That apart, statutory provision creates a bar in

entertaining complaint after the expiry of one year from the

date on which the act constituting violation of human rights

is alleged to have been committed.

13. Though several grounds have been raised in the

writ petition, after a lapse of many years from the date of

alleged violation of human rights complaint has been filed

before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Period

of limitation for filing a complaint as contemplated in

Section 36(1) and (2) of the Protection of Human Rights

Act, 1993 has been taken note of. In the abovesaid

circumstances, the prayer sought for in the writ petition WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 11 ::

cannot be granted.

14. Moreover, there is no specific provision which

confer power on the Kerala Human Rights Commission to

review its own order.

15. Power of review has to be specifically provided in

the statute. If not done, the same cannot be exercised.

Reference can be made to few decisions:

(i) In Ramdayal Missir & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 1958 Pat. 4], a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that the power of review is a statutory power and in absence of any such power, having been conferred in writing in the statute, no power would vest, within any authority, to exercise the power of review. In the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench held as under:-

"On an examination of the language of these provisions it is manifest that the Settlement Officer has not been expressly granted the power of review of an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. It is true that Section 108A provides for correction by the Revenue Officers of mistakes in the records-of-rights, but the Section applies only to a case where an application is made after the final publication of the records-of-rights. It is also obvious that the Section provides for the correction of the records-of-rights only when there is a bona fide mistake."

(ii) In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844], the Hon'ble Supreme Court WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 12 ::

held thus:

"4. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order.

The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order...................."

(iii) In Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 525], the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

"11. It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction....................."

(iv) In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is the act of looking, offer, something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v.

Pradyunmansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR (1970) SC 1273], held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 13 ::

that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error........................"

(v) In Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777, at para 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"Applying these principles it is apparent that where a Court or quasi Judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or the quasi Judicial authority is vested with the power of review by express provision or by necessary implication."

(vi) In Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Das and Ors.

[(2005) 3 SCC 427], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-

"33. The right of review is a statutory right. Such right can be invoked if the conditions therefore are fulfilled. So is a right of appeal. A right of review and right to appeal stand on different footings although some grounds may be overlapping.........."

(emphasis supplied)

(vii) In Rajindersingh v. Lt. Governor, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 289, at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law is well settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. Power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 14 ::

miscarriage of justice. It was further held that Courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order, when there exists an error on the face of record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases.

(viii) In Union of India v. Kamal Sengupta reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 612], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 14 and 15, has held as under:

"14. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier.

15. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self- evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."

(ix) In Kalabharti Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others, [(2010) 9 SCC 437], the power of review WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 15 ::

in the absence of statutory provisions was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, at paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14, held as under:

"12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of Judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another, AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641).

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan and others, AIR 1978 SC 1814; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others, AIR 1987 SC 2186; State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and others, (1998) 7 SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, (2008) 2 SCC 705, this Court held that the pouter to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible."

WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 16 ::

(x) Referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in Infant Jesus Teacher Training v. M. Manikandan (Rev. Appn. No. 38 of 2010 in W.A. No. 1145 of 2009, dated 31.08.2010), considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and at paragraphs 14, 31 and 32, held as follows:-

"14. Considering the scope of review jurisdiction and holding "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record must be self evident and does not require a process of reasoning, in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, [(1997) 8 SCC 715], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174) (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:

"What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an error apparent on the face of the record. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an error apparent on the face of the record, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."

..........

WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 17 ::

31. The review proceeding is not by way of an appeal. Holding that the review must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record and reappraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction, which is not permissible, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, [(1995) 1 SCC 170], the Supreme Court held as under:

"8. It is well settled that the 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 connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389], speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3) "It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.

State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909), there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 18 ::

any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.

9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC 137), wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record:

"An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-

evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 19 ::

such a writ."

32. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 137, (SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE v. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE), the error must be apparent on the face of the record i.e., error must be self evident and not which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or which has to be searched. In other words, it must be an error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. Under the guise of review, parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only if such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument arid without any scope for controversy with regard to such error, which stares at the face even by a mere glance of the judgment. The said position of law is reiterated in the decisions reported In [(1997) 8 SCC 715], Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban And Others [2001 (1) Mu 45 (SC)], Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics Hydropower Ltd. and Others [(2005) 6 SCC 651], Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Bank [(2006 (4) SCC 78] and State of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612]."

(xi) In Haryana State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mawasi, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:

"26. At this stage it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi-judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so..........................." (emphasis supplied) WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 20 ::

16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the

view that the petitioner has not made out a case for

granting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE jes WP(C) NO. 10479 OF 2021

:: 21 ::

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN WPC NO. 96 OF 2016 DATED 1ST DECEMBER 2016.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER IN WPC NO.