Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 317 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. UMESH KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI MOHAN LAL
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR
UNIVERSITY ROAD, ANANTPUR REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. ANITA MISHRA W/O SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE R/O VILLAGE SHANTITEER, POST,
BHUNGAWM, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. SEEMA SINGH W/O SHRI VIJAY SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE R/O AZAD NAGAR, URRAHAT, DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND HOSING DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR, REWA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REWA THROUGH
COM M IS S ION ER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, SHRI A.P. SHUKLA, INCHARGE
NODAL OFFICER, PMAYAHP MUNICIPAL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
1:38:16 PM
2
CORPORATION, REWA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR PANDEY-LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARED ON
ADVANCE NOTICE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 AND SHRI ANSHUL
TIWARI-PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of order dated
02/02/2023 passed in WP No.24662/2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed a
petition before this Court vide WP No.27661/2021. This Court vide order dated
29/04/2022 recorded the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner that
they were ready to deposit the remaining amount along with interest as per rules,
if Municipal Corporation considers to recall the cancellation of notice dated
18/11/2021.
Learned counsel contends that the undertaking was given by the counsel
without there being any instruction from the client and therefore in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uptron India Ltd. Vs.
Shammi Bhan and Anr. reported in 1998 AIR (SC) 1681, the order deserves
to be recalled inasmuch there was no authorization by the client to the counsel
to furnish undertaking which has been recorded in the order dated 29/04/2022
passed in WP No.27661/2021.
Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused
the record.
A perusal of the undertaking which finds mention in the order reflects that
the statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready to pay the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
1:38:16 PM
remaining amount along with interest as per rules, if the Municipal Corporation
considers to recall the cancellation notice dated 18/11/2021. Pursuant to the
order dated 29/04/2022 passed by this Court in WP No.27661/2021, the
Municipal Corporation issued notice to the present petitioner on 05/08/2022 and
in due compliance of order dated 29/04/2022, the petitioner were called upon to
deposit the interest @ 18 % per annum.
The petitioner during pendency of the WP No.27661/2021 did not make
any efforts to challenge the said order dated 05/08/2022 by which the petitioner
in terms of the order passed in WP No.27661/2021 was directed to pay interest
@ 18% and deposit the amount of premium. No efforts were made by the
petitioner to seek recalling of the said order dated 29/04/2022 passed in WP
No.27661/2021.
The said WP No.27661/2021 after passing of the order dated 29/04/2022,
was finally decided on 02/02/2023 and during this prolong period of 10 months,
there were no efforts by the petitioner to move an application seeking recalling
of order dated 29/04/2022. Therefore, the present Review Petition is merely an
afterthought and the petitioner has failed to point out any error which is
apparent on the fact of the record. The judgment relied by the petitioner in the
case of Uptron India Ltd. (Supra) is distinguishable on facts.
It is trite law that the error in the order should be apparent which is not to
be gathered upon long drawn process of reasoning.
Accordingly, this Review Petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
1:38:16 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 4/12/2023
1:38:16 PM
