Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Model School Near Shivhare ... vs Assistant Provident Find ... on 18 June, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                              1
           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       R.P.No.414/2021
(M/s Model School Near Shivhare Petrol Pump, Gwalior Road,
District Bhind Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
(Compliance), Regional EPFO Sanjay Complex Gwalior, District
Gwalior)

Gwalior, Dated:- 18/6/2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent-Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) Regional EPFO.

(1) The present review petition has been filed seeking review of

order dated 3.5.2021 passed in W.P.No.7989/2021, wherein the writ

petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to deposit

50% of the impugned order amount then there will be no further

recovery from the petitioner till the next date of hearing and the

petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Court on the

next date of hearing, if the Appellate Court is available for hearing

and will not take any unnecessary adjournment and will argue on the

application which are filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate

Court was also directed to consider and decide the pending

applications expeditiously.

(2) The review is being filed on the ground that for deleting of

condition of deposit of 50% of the amount because no instructions

were given by the petitioner to the learned counsel to give his consent

for deposition of 50% of the amount and affidavit to the aforesaid

effect is also being filed in pursuance to the direction given by this

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No.414/2021 (M/s Model School Near Shivhare Petrol Pump, Gwalior Road, District Bhind Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional EPFO Sanjay Complex Gwalior, District Gwalior)

Court on the earlier occasion vide order dated 10.6.2021. Due to the

Covid-19 pandemic scenario and the lock down in the entire country

the schools have not functioned since last more than 1 ½ years and no

regular classes were in operation. The students have not deposited the

entire fees to bear the expenses of the school. In such circumstances,

as there was no regular functioning of the school, the petitioner is not

in a position to deposit 50% of the amount. She has never given any

instructions to the counsel to give her consent before the Court

regarding deposition of 50% of the amount.

(3) Per contra counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed

the prayer and has submitted that the counsel has made a statement

categorically before this Court on the last date of hearing and on the

basis of the statement made by the counsel that they are willing and

ready to deposit 50% of the amount, this Court has considered his

prayer and has granted interim relief to the petitioner till 15 th June,

2021. They were further directed to appear before the Appellate

Authority and press for hearing of applications. No illegality is being

pointed out by the counsel which is apparent on the face of record.

Thus, no ground for review is made out. He has prayed for dismissal

of the applications.

(4) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

(5) It is seen from the record that while disposing of the writ

petition this Court has observed as under:

"From the perusal of the order sheets, it is seen that the order impugned has been passed on 21.12.2020 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1231400/- within a period of fifteen days. The appeal has already been filed by the petitioner which is pending consideration but owing to the fact that the regular functioning is not taking place at the appellate Court Lucknow and the additional charge is given to CGIT- cum-Labour Court Kanpur coupled with the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the order amount within seven working days from today, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the interim relief to the petitioner. Thus, as the amount of Rs. 452000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner, the remaining amount be deposited by the petitioner within seven working days and if the petitioner deposits the total 50% of the impugned order amount then there will be no further recovery from the petitioner till the next date of hearing i.e. till 15th June, 2021. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate Court on the next date

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No.414/2021 (M/s Model School Near Shivhare Petrol Pump, Gwalior Road, District Bhind Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional EPFO Sanjay Complex Gwalior, District Gwalior)

of hearing if the appellate Court is available for hearing and will not take any unnecessary adjournment and will argue on the applications which are filed before the appellate Court. The appellate Court is also directed to consider and decide the pending applications expeditiously. In any unavoidable circumstances if the hearing does not take place on the next date before the appellate Court, the interim relief granted by this Court is directed to be continued upto 15th June, 2021."

(6) Seeking review of an order there is very limited scope of

interference and the parties seeking review is required to point out the

glaring irregularity apparent on the face of record in the impugned

order of which the review is sought. In the present case counsel

could not point out any glaring irregularity which is apparent on the

face of record in the impugned order. Merely the conditions of

Covid-19 and financial crises which are being pointed out by the

counsel could not be a ground to review an order especially in the

circumstances when the counsel has made a statement before this

Court that they are ready to deposit 50% of the amount and only on

his statement this Court has granted interim relief to the petitioner.

The law with respect to entertaining the review petition is settled in

the case S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission;

(2009) 10 SCC 464 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under :-

"12. An error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie."

(7) Further in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Kamal

Sengupta and Anr; (2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:-

"22. 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."

(8) Further in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India and

others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under :-

"55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No.414/2021 (M/s Model School Near Shivhare Petrol Pump, Gwalior Road, District Bhind Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional EPFO Sanjay Complex Gwalior, District Gwalior)

its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment."

(9) Further in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu and Others in Civil Appeal No.10620 of 2013, (2014

(5) SCC 75) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"40. Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. (Vide: Shah Shivraj Gopalji v. Edappakath Ayissa Bi & Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302; and Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 65)."

(10) The grounds of review are very limited. The aforesaid grounds

raised by the petitioner does not fall under the parameter to enable this

Court to entertain the review petition.

(11) Even otherwise deposit of 50% amount is a prerequisite for

moving the appeal and stay application before the Appellate Forum.

(12) Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

cases, no ground for reviewing the order dated 3.5.2021 passed in

W.P.No.7989/2021.

(13) Accordingly, the review petition sans merit and is hereby

dismissed.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.