Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Rambihari Mishra Since Dead Thr. ... on 4 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 311
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RP-150-2018
(DR. RAMBIHARI MISHRA SINCE DEAD THR. LEGAL HEIRS AVINASH BIHARI MISHRA & ORS. VS. THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.)
RP-442-2018
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. vs. DR. RAMBIHARI MISHRA SINCE DEAD THR. LEGAL
HEIRS AVINASH BIHARI MISHRA & ANR.)
Gwalior, Dated :04.05.2018
In R.P. No.150/2018
Shri K.S. Tomar, Senior counsel with Shri J.S.
Kaurav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
In R.P. No.442/2018
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners/State.
Shri K.S. Tomar, Senior counsel with Shri J.S. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents.
There is delay of 122 days in Review Petition No.150/2018. And in Review Petition No.442/2018, there is delay of 167 days. Condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A. No.652/2018 and I.A. No.1483/2018, respectively. Though opposed at by respective parties; however, taking into consideration the circumstances which prevented them from filing the petitions within limitation, 2 sufficient cause is made out. Consequently, delay condoned. Respective I.As. stand disposed of.
2. Review of order passed in Writ Appeal No.292/2017 decided on 31/08/2017 is being sought vide these petitions. The State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries seeks review on the anvil of decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) CC No.8493/2017 decided on 21/02/2018.
3. Since trite it is that a subsequent decision cannot be a ground for review.
4. In Nand Kishore Ahirwar and another v. Haridas Parsedia and others: [(2001) 9 SCC 325], it is held:
"2. We have carefully considered the review petitions and the grounds in support thereof. The fact that in a subsequent matter the judgment sought to be reviewed is referred for reconsideration to a Constitution Bench, is irrelevant for deciding the question whether the impugned judgment is required to be reviewed. See Explanation to order 47 Rule 1 which reads as follows:
"The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a 3 ground for the review of such judgment."
3. Thus, even if subsequent Constitution Bench takes a contrary view, it will be no ground for reviewing the judgment in question. Mere reference to Constitution Bench stands on a still weaker footing. Even otherwise, on merits, it has to be kept in view that the decision sought to be reviewed has nothing to do with the question whether there can be dilution of standards in the matter of promotion of employees as referred to in Indra Sawhney case. The issue was entirely different. In the present case, there was already dilution of standards in making promotions by granting 10 per cent reduction of marks for SC/ST candidates in examinations for the purpose. The question was when the examination was confined to SC/ST candidates only, such dilution could be resorted to. It was not in dispute between the parties that if at such departmental examinations general category of candidates competed with SC/ST candidates, such dilution was legally permissible. Thus question of dilution for SC/ST candidates only was not on the anvil of scrutiny before this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed while in Indra Sawhney case such general dilution was not approved.
Even otherwise, after insertion of Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventyseventh Amendment) Act, 1995 this objection would not survive even on merits. For all these reasons, these review petitions are dismissed." 4
5. In view whereof, we perceive no error on the face of record as would warrant an indulgence.
6. Similarly, the petitioner in Review Petition No.150/2018 seeks modification of order passed in Writ Appeal No.292/2017 for directing the State to deposit Rs. 5 Crores.
7. Evidently, the challenge in Writ Petition No.1554/2010 was to notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of land bearing Survey No.456 ad-measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa (0.460 hectare) situated at Patwari Halka No.42 Mahalgaon, Tahsil and District Gwalior, on the anvil that no public interest is involved. The petition was dismissed. In appeal while upholding the notification and the proceedings for acquisition in W.A. No.292/2017, the State was directed to assess the compensation as per the stipulation contained in the light of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In Writ Appeal while dwelling upon the 5 rival contention, averments made in the return filed by the State was taken note of that Rs.5 Crores were deposited by the State in an execution proceedings. The Review Petition seeks said direction which in given facts, wherein the State Government was directed to assess the compensation as per the stipulation contained in 2013 Act, cannot be granted.
8. Consequently, both the Review Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pwn*
Digitally signed by PAWAN
KUMAR
Date: 2018.05.07 18:25:25 +05'30'