Piyush Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6839 MP

                                                                         1                                RP-1345-2018
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          RP-1345-2018
                                              (PIYUSH RAWAT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
                                             Shri Rajas Pohankar, counsel for the petitioners.

                                             Shri Kaustubh Singh, panel lawyer for the respondent no.1/State.

Shri Siddharth Sharma, counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4. Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, counsel for the intervener. The review petition is being filed seeking review of order dated

09.08.2018 (Annexure RP/1), passed in Writ Petition No.8519/2018.

It is argued that at the time of hearing the petition on admission and interim relief the notices were issued and the respondents were restrained from granting regular appointment to Assistant Engineer on contract basis vide order dated 25.04.2018. The reply on behalf of M.P. Power and Management Company Limited i.e. respondent no.2 was filed along with an application for vacating stay. The reply to the stay vacating application was filed by the petitioners and after arguments on the application for vacating stay with the consensus of the parties, the interim order was modified to the

extent that the recruitment process may go on but it shall not be finalized and all the intervention applications filed by the interested parties were allowed. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 29.06.2018 and on that date the matter was considered by this Court on an objection being made by the respondents regarding maintainability of the petition and locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition. It is argued that no such stand was taken by the respondents in the reply and no opportunity has been sought for or has been granted to the petitioner to rebut such submissions by way of rejoinder. He has brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court a Circular dated 10.08.2017; wherein, the Board of Director of the respondent no.4 Company whose policy was under challenge had denied the minimum qualification, age limit, pay scale and reservation of appointment on the vacant post in the Company. It is argued Signature Not Verified SAN that the respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioners' Junior Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.30 11:06:34 IST 2 RP-1345-2018 Engineers apart from having 40% promotional quota also have right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer directly from 60% quota for direct recruitment. However, as there was no objection with respect to the locus of the petitioner and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to rebut the objections taken by the respondent no.2 by filing a rejoinder. The

petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition. It is argued that by placing incorrect fact before this Court the order impugned is passed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidhalaya v. Santosh Kumar (R.P. No.472/2016) decided on 04.05.2017; wherein this Court has held the review to be maintainable on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him. He has further relied upon the order passed in R.P. No.217/2012 (Ku. Jyoti Singh Rathore Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya and another), decided on 01.05.2012; wherein, in similar circumstances the review petition was allowed.

He has further placed reliance upon the order passed in R.P. No.1133/2017, decided on 16.01.2018; wherein, the Division Bench has allowed the review petition and restored the Writ Appeal No.546/2016 to its original number for reconsideration on the ground that the factum that M.P. Power Generating Company has increased the age of superannuation of its employees in April, 2012. The aforesaid aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court at the relevant time. In such circumstances, he has prayed for reviewing the order dated 09.08.2018.

Per contra, counsel appearing of the respondents no.2 to 4/Company has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that no order reviewing the order passed in the writ petition can be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as it is a by party order and after detailed arguments the same has been passed. It is submitted that earlier when the case

Signature Not Verified SAN was considered at the stage of admission the interim relief was granted to the

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.30 11:06:34 IST 3 RP-1345-2018 petitioner; thereafter, the same was modified after detailed arguments and by way of impugned order the petition was held to be not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner as he was having no locus to file the present petition. It is a by party order and after the detailed arguments and deliberations by the Court the same has been passed. It is submitted that in cases of review the procedure adopted by the Court to decide the case has to be considered and the glaring illegality available on the face of record is to be considered. No merits of the case could be considered while considering the review petitions. The order passed by the Court may be an incorrect order but for which the remedy of review is not available. The petitioner is having a remedy of filing a writ appeal to challenge the order passed in the writ petition, but by way of

review the same cannot be recalled. The order passed in the writ petition was passed after the arguments advanced by both the parties and due consideration of the records. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others [2021 (2) M.P.L.J. 472] and also in the case of Dr. Devendra Gautam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Appeal No.2103/2019, decided on 19.11.2020. It is submitted that the order is just and proper does not call for interference in the review petition.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. From the persual of the record it is seen that the petitioner is seeking review of the order passed in Writ Petition No.8519/2018, which was dismissed holding the petitioner not having any locus to file the Writ Petition. The aforesaid order has been passed after a detailed arguments in the matter and after due consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties.

The law with respect to review is settled by the Supreme Court. In the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC 137) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.30 11:06:34 IST 4 RP-1345-2018 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." Further, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new a n d 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 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."

I n S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"An error contemplated under the Rule 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. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests Signature Not Verified SAN formulated above".

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.30 11:06:34 IST 5 RP-1345-2018 Further, in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"ÂœThe 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."Â​

Thus, the law with respect to entertaining a review petition is settled.

No glaring irregularity or illegality could be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order. Thus, no interference in the order could be made in this review petition. The review petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

However, a liberty is extended to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the order passed in the writ petition.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

taj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.30 11:06:34 IST