WPMS/583/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 1171 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
SL. No   Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     MCC No.1263 of 2019 (Review Application)
                                     MCC No.17050 of 2021 (Restoration Application)
                                     In
                                     WPMS No.583 of 2018
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Samar Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.

The review application had been filed before this Court through Mr. Samar Pal Singh, Advocate, who was not the Counsel, who had initially argued the matter, which was adjudicated finally on 15.04.2019, on its merits. But, however, later on the said review application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 03.03.2021, to which a recall/restoration application, has been filed by the Counsel to recall the order.

After having considered the reasons for absence on 03.03.2021, and being satisfied with the same, the restoration application is allowed and the order dated 03.03.2021 is recalled, the review application is restored to its original number.

Since, at the time when this writ petition was finally adjudicated on its merits by this Court, the learned counsel for the review applicant was not the arguing counsel. Hence, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another, which has been reported in AIR 1997 (SC), 1005, a changed counsel couldn't filed a review application and the logic behind it was that the counsel, who has finally or actually argued the case, when it was finally decided would be the best person to assist the Court properly with regards to the flaws committed at the time when the final adjudication was made.

In view of the said embargo, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the review application, with a liberty reserved to him to file it through the counsel, who has argued the matter.

Subject to the aforesaid, the review application is also dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 25.03.2021

NR/