Uttarakhand High Court
Jagdish Chandra Pandey & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 December, 2013
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Review Application No. 623 of 2013
Delay Condonation Application No. 10736 of 2013
Review Application No. 660 of 2013
Delay Condonation Application No. 11483 of 2013
Review Application No. 680 of 2013
Delay Condonation Application No. 11729 of 2013
Review Application No. 681 of 2013
Delay Condonation Application No. 11731 of 2013
In
Writ Petition (SB) No. 26 of 2008
Jagdish Chandra Pandey & others. ........... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ............ Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No. 1.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. I.M. Quddusi and Mr. A.K. Joshi, Advocates for respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11
& 13 / review applicants.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
There has been some delay in preferring these Review Applications and, accordingly, Applications have been filed for condonation of delay. The same are not being objected. We have independently considered the averments made in the Applications for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the Applications.
2. The learned counsel for the review applicants seeks to re-argue the case. That is not permissible under the garb of Review Applications. The learned counsel submitted that there were new Rules. We called upon the learned counsel to produce from their counter affidavit an assertion that new Rules had come into force. He has failed to do so.
3. The learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that, on discovery of new facts, review is maintainable. Review is permissible upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person 2 seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order under review was passed or made. No attempt has been made to show that, after exercise of due diligence, the new and important matter or evidence could not come to the knowledge of the review applicants.
4. We, accordingly, dismiss the Review Applications.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
05.12.2013 05.12.2013
G