Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ladduram Kori vs Jajpal Singh on 22 November, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
RP.1711.2018
(Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others)
Gwalior, Dated : 22.11.2018
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri S.S. Gautam, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
Review of order dated 25.10.13 passed in Writ Appeal No.502/13 is being sought. The Writ Appeal was directed against the order dated 09.10.13 passed in Writ Petition No.7047/13.
The Writ Petition, in turn, was against the order dated 16.09.13 passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee before whom complaint was made by the then State Minister of Commerce and Industries as regard to the caste of the writ petitioner (presently arrayed as respondent No.1) that he does not belong to "Nat" caste. The Scrutiny Committee after recording findings as to the steps taken to serve notice on the writ petitioner he did not appear proceeded to pass order that he does not belong to scheduled caste community. The writ petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that there was a major lapse on the part of the Scrutiny Committee.
The writ petition is reportedly pending and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) is posted for final hearing in December, 2018.
In Writ Petition, the petitioner sought stay of the operation of order passed by the Scrutiny Committee which was declined by learned Single Judge by order dated 09.10.13. The appellate court vide order under review reversed the order on 25.10.13 and directed that impugned order dated 16.09.13 passed by the High Level Scrutiny Committee shall remain stayed. The order has not been challenged by any of the parties in the writ petition.
In Writ Petition, one Ramesh Kumar Itoria filed an application to intervene; however, the applications (IA.7730/13 and IA.3671/18) were dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.18.
The present appellant without seeking any intervention in WP.7047/13, has filed this Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 25.10.13 passed in the Writ Appeal. That vide IA.4907/18 the petitioner seeks leave to file Review Petition. An application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is also filed vide IA.4910/18.
Parties are heard on IA.4907/18, an application for grant of permission to file Review Petition.
It is urged by the Review Petitioner that he THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) has filed his nomination form for the legislative assembly seat Ashok Nagar which is reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate. It is urged that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7047/13 (presently respondent No.1) has forged the caste certificate of "NAT" which has since been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, yet he is contesting election from Ashok Nagar constituency on the anvil of said caste certificate because of the interim stay granted by order dated 25.10.13 passed in Writ Appeal No.502/13. And despite objection raised by present petitioner no action is taken. Placing reliance on the order dated 28.03.18 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1375-1376/2013 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 25.10.13 deemed to have been vacated; accordingly, it is contended that in the wake of this factual situation the leave be granted to the petitioner to file Review Petition and order dated 25.10.13 be reviewed/recalled.
The application is opposed by respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner has no locus as the lis which is subject matter of Writ Petition No.7047/13 is as regard to his caste and there is no compatibility with that of the petitioner. It is urged that having been wronged THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) by the Scrutiny Committee in rejecting the caste certificate, the answering respondent has challenged the decision of cancellation which having been stayed, it is within his right to contest assembly election from the reserved constituency, which being his statutory right cannot be curtailed in the manner, the present petitioner intends to. It is further contended that the answering respondent submitted his nomination which has been found valid after scrutiny inspite of objections raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer, which is not challenged by the petitioner. However, in order to circumvent, it is urged, the petitioner has taken recourse to file present review petition which is not tenable as the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved person. Reliance is placed on the decision in "Bangalore Development Authority and etc., Vs. P. Anjanappa (since deceased by L.Rs) and others [2004 AIHC 534]", "Bharat Singh Vs. Firm Sheo Pershad Giani Ram and others [AIR 1978 Delhi 122]", "Sarvesh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [ILR (2011) MP 2160]", Sivakami and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2018) 4 SCC 587] and Lily Thomas etc.etc Vs. Union of India and others [AIR 2000 SC 1650].
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) Considered rival submissions and perused the record.
Evidently, the lis forming subject matter of Writ Petition No.7047/13 relates to challenge to a decision taken by the Scrutiny Committee of cancelling respondent No.1's caste certificate and recommending lodging of FIR against him. The said order was passed on 16.09.13, which immediately in its effect did not cause any injury to the Review Petitioner. Thus, no legal or fundamental right of the review petitioner was effected either with the cancellation of caste certificate nor with the stay of its operation by order passed in Writ Appeal No.502/2013 on 25.10.13. It can, therefore, not be said that the Review Petitioner is a person aggrieved. In "Gopabandhu Biswal Vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and others [AIR 1998 SC 1872]", it is observed:
"13. It is difficult to include the applicants in the review applications in the category of "persons aggrieved". The main applicant i.e. the present appellant-Biswal had joined as party respondents all those persons who had superseded him for selection to the Indian Police Service since they would be persons affected in case he succeeded in his application. The Tribunal has directed that Biswal be considered for promotion between 1977 and 1980 and not thereafter. During this period, the two THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) applicants in review application No. 16 of 1993 were nowhere within the zone of consideration for promotion to I.P.S. One of the applicants joined the police service only in 1974 and was not eligible for further promotion till 1982. The other applicant, though eligible for promotion, was on account of his rank in the seniority list, not within the zone of consideration at any time prior to 5.11.1980. As a matter of fact the two applicants in review application No. 16 of 1993 were selected for promotion to I.P.S. only in 1993 when they were included in the select list of 1993. Therefore, they could not have been made parties in T.A. No. 1 of 1989. At that point of time, these applicants had only a chance of promotion in future. This does not confer any legal right on these applicants and they cannot be considered as parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment. However, leniently one may construe the term 'party aggrieved', a person not directly affected cannot be so considered. Otherwise for years to come, every person who becomes eligible for promotion will be considered a party aggrieved' when the Tribunal interprets any Service Rule such as in the present case. Only persons who are directly and immediately affected by the impugned order can be considered as 'parties aggrieved' under Section 22(3) (f) read with Order 47 Rule 1."
In "Bangalore Development Authority and etc., Vs. P. Anjanappa (since deceased by L.Rs) and others [2004 AIHC 534]", it is THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) held:-
"11. .....It is now well settled that a review application can be filed only by party to the lis in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed. It cannot be preferred by a third party. Alternatively the review petition cannot be filed by a party who is not a party to the suit. ...."
In "Bharat Singh Vs. Firm Sheo Pershad Giani Ram and others [AIR 1978 Delhi 122]", Division Bench of Delhi High Court on an issue, similar to the present one, held:
"31. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case because the impugned order dismissing the review application can be upheld on a preliminary point, namely, that no review petition under O.47, R.1 C.P.C. could be filed by Bharat Singh. O. 47, R. 1 C.P.C. reads as under :-
"1.(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved :-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
On a very reading of the rule it is clear that a review application can be filed only by a party to the lis in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed. It cannot be preferred by a third party. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the phrase "any person considering himself aggrieved" would include anyone who is adversely affected by the impugned order, whether that person is or is not party to the lis in which the impugned order has been passed. We do not agree. As will be apparent from a reading of the rule any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review provided he can establish that he "from the discovery of new and important matters of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made." This postulates that the person applying for review has to satisfy two conditions, namely, that he is aggrieved by the order and also that he for the reasons mentioned was not in a position to bring that fact to the notice of the Court earlier which resulted in a wrong order being passed. If these two conditions are necessary before a review application can be moved, it follows that the review application has to be made by THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 9 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) a person who was a party to the lis decided by the impugned order or decree.
We are in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed by their Lordships.
Similar issue arose in "Sarvesh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [ILR (2011) MP 2160]" wherein one of us (Sanjay Yadav J.) had an occasion to dwell upon the same in the following terms:
"5. In the context of present case petitioner cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved". To borrow a definition of the expression from a decision reported in 1880-14 Ch.D 458 wherein James L.J. opined "But the words "person aggrieved"
do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order has been made. A "person aggrieved" must be a man who has suffered legal grievance, which has wrongfully refused him something or wrongly affected his title to something."
6. The said proposition finds approval by the Courts in India (please see Jhabba Lal V. Shib Charan and others" AIR 1917 Allahabad 160, Balgovind and another V. Chaganlal Laxminarayan and another:
AIR (33) 1946 Nagpur 24 at page 26 Column- C-1.
7. In V.D. Kumarappan V. Secretary, Home Department, Trivandrum: AIR 1960 Kerala 378, the learned single Judge placing reliance on the principle as laid down by James LJ. In Ex Parte THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 10 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) Sidebotham. In re, Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D.458 observed:
"The words "affected by the order", in law must therefore imply, that the order must bring about or produce a change in the petitioner's legal rights. In short the words "affected"
and "aggrieved" though not synonymous and analogous. I think, adopting partially the language of Ferris in his work on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, page 199, an order may be said to affect a person when it is "directed against him or his property in the sense that the enforcement of the decision would involve some special immediate and in its effect a direct injury to his interests". I am not satisfied that this has been established by the petitioner."
8. Therefore, though the petitioner is a citizen of India having fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, unless establishes any of his legal right or even a fundamental right infringed because of the issuance of Caste Certificate in favour of respondent no.5 cannot as a matter of right maintain a challenge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner then would be a mere busy body.
Having, thus, considered, we are of the opinion that the Review Petitioner being not an "aggrieved person" cannot be granted leave to seek review of order dated 25.10.13 passed in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 11 RP.1711.2018 (Ladduram Kori Vs. Jajpal Singh and others) WA.502/13.
Consequently, IA.4907/18 is dismissed. As a result whereof, the application for condonation of delay in filing Review Petition (IA.4910/18), Review Petition and application for stay (IA. No.4909/18) are also dismissed.
No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pd
PAWAN
DHARKAR
2018.11.26
18:02:46
-08'00'