Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/876/2013 on 30 November, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No.876 of 2013
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Addl. C.S.C. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
A very peculiar fact has emerged
consideration in the present writ petition, wherein
the petitioner has sought to address the Court on a
Review Application No.10258 of 2021, which is
supported with the Delay Condonation Appl.
No.10259 of 2021, seeking an explanation of delay
of seven years i.e. approximately 2540 days, which
has chanced in filing the review application;
seeking review of the judgment dated 25.08.2014
which has been rendered by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court. In fact, if the principle relief, which
has been sought by the petitioner in the present writ
petition is taken into consideration, in fact the
Director General of Police by the impugned order
of 22.06.2013; had rejected the representation of the
petitioner in compliance of the earlier judgment
which was rendered by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court on 22.04.2013 in Writ Petition (S/S)
No.1010 of 2011 and thereby the petitioner's claim
to be considered for promotion on the post of Sub
Inspector, afresh taking into consideration alleged
outstanding entry in the Annual Confidential Report
of petitioner for the year 2008, was not taken into
consideration, as to be a foundation for the grant of
relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Ultimately, the writ petition was finally
adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide its judgment dated 25.08.2014, whereby the
writ petition was dismissed. As a consequence of
the dismissal of the writ petition, the matter was
carried before the Division Bench of this Court by
the petitioner himself by way of Special Appeal
No.519 of 2014 Pankaj Joshi vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others and the Division Bench
of this Court by the judgment of 30.07.2015 had
dismissed the Special Appeal and as a consequence
thereto has affirmed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
It is not only that being aggrieved against the
judgment of the Special Appellate Court, which is a
court superior to the Coordinate Bench, who has
rendered the judgment, which was under challenge
in a Special Appeal, the matter had also travelled to
the Hon'ble Apex Court at the behest of the
petitioner and the Hon'ble Apex Court too had
dismissed the SLP preferred by the petitioner. This
fact, that the SLP has been dismissed is a fact,
which is not disputed by the petitioner. It was the
culmination of the aforesaid proceedings, that the
petitioner had now filed a review application on
10.08.2021, seeking a review of the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench alongwith the
delay condonation application.
This Court is of the view, that as far as the
review which has been sought of the judgment
dated 25.08.2014 rendered by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court since it has attained finality with the
dismissal of Special Appeal by the Larger Bench of
this Court and later on, on its affirmation by the
Hon'ble Apex Court will lead to an inference that
the review sought thereafter by the judgment of
learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2014 which stood
merged with the decision of the Division Bench and
consequently with the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court dismissing the SLP of the petitioner,
this Court is of the view that the same cannot be
reopened and the petitioner cannot be permitted to
take the liberty to re-argue the matter afresh, once
his claim has been settled up to the Apex Court; as
in view of the implications contained under Order
47 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. i.e. after the affirmation of
the judgment by the Special Appellate Court, the
judgment rendered by the Single Judge sought to be
reviewed now cannot be brought within the ambit
of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
Hence, consequently, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the review application, as
well as with the delay condonation application
itself, for the reason being that it is an in ordinate
delay of seven years i.e. approximately 2514 days
of delay and hence, the delay condonation
application as well as the review application for the
reasons already assigned above is not sustainable
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.11.2021
Arti
