M/S. Balimela Hydro Electric vs Mr. Nanda
2022 Latest Caselaw 1959 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RVWPET No.35 Of 2022
                                 (Through hybrid mode)

             M/s. Balimela Hydro Electric            ....                   Petitioner
             Project (Unit of Odisha Hydro
             Power Corporation Ltd.)

                                                     Mr.D.P.Nanda, Senior Advocate
                                             -versus-

                                                     ....         Alleged Contemners
             District Consumer Redressal
             Commission and another


                       CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                        ORDER

23.03.2022 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Nanda, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client seeks review of order dated 15th December, 2021, by which the writ petition was dismissed. He draws attention to paragraph 3 in the application and translated certified copy of order-sheet in Case no.157 of 2021, pending before the District Consumer Forum, Aligarh. He submits, the order-sheet shows the case is still pending but at the time of hearing and making of said order dated 15th December, 2021, opposite party no.2, (complainant before the forum) had submitted that the consumer case had been heard and reserved for judgment on 8th December, 2021. This incorrect submission contributed to dismissal of the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was dismissed in deference to the caution issued by the Supreme Court on order dated 6th August, 2012 in

// 2 //

S.L.P.(C) nos.24228- 24229 of 2012 (CC nos. 12891-12892 of 2012) (Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory). Secondly, Court can correct errors made by it and also correct error made by applicant, in pleadings or submissions, on its application and adjudication upon notice. Here, the opposite party is said to have been made incorrect submissions. That party has not approached Court for rectification of its error.

3. In the circumstances, Court is not inclined to issue directions for issuance of notice. No order can be made on the application. It is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant