Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Bihari Pandey vs Mst. Sayajunnisha on 9 October, 2015
RP-568-2015
(LAL BIHARI PANDEY Vs MST. SAYAJUNNISHA)
09-10-2015
09.10.2015 R.P. No.568/2015
Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Nikhil
Tiwari, counsel for the review petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent
No.4.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the
judgment dated 5.8.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1351/12.
Facts giving rise to filing of the review petition briefly
stated are that the review petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition in which challenge was made to order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the State Government by which prospecting licence was granted in respect of land bearing Khasra No.70 Part, 73/1, 73/2, 75 Part, 78 Part, 79, 80/1, 2, 81 Part, 84 Part, 86 Part, 87 Part, 88 Part, 89 and 93 in favour of respondent No.4. The order dated 12.1.2012 was challenged mainly on the ground that since the petitioner is the Bhumiswami in respect of land bearing Khasra No.80/1, 80/2 and 78 Part, the same could not have been granted on mining lease to respondent No.4. This Court by order dated 5.8.2014 dismissed the writ petition.
Learned senior counsel for the review petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the State Government, submitted that respondent No.4 had not applied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of land bearing Khasra No.80/1, 80/2 and 78 Part. It was further submitted that the petitioner also had submitted an application for grant of prospecting licence on 20.3.2007 which was not considered while passing the order dated 10.8.2009, therefore, the judgment dated 5.8.2014 deserves to be reviewed.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the judgment passed by this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that in the review petition, the review petitioner has set up altogether a new case, which is not permissible in law. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Thressiamma Jacob and others Vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and others, (2013) 9 SCC 725.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, re-hearing is not permissible. See: J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P., (AIR 1988 SC 1681), S.Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612.
The contention raised on behalf of review petitioner that respondent No.4 had not applied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of land bearing Khasra No.80/1, 82/2 and 78 Part is concerned, the same deserves to be stated to be rejected, as the matter travelled upto the revisional authority, at the instance of the review petitioner and the revisional authority vide order dated 10.8.2009 decided the revision in favour of the petitioner and granted mining lease to the review petitioner only in respect of land bearing Khasra No.2, 178 and 180 respectively and claim of the review petitioner in respect of land bearing Khasra No.80/1, 80/2 and 78 Part was rejected. The aforesaid order has attained finality, therefore, the same binds the review petitioner. Similarly, the contention raised by the review petitioner that his application for grant of prospecting licence was not considered is concerned, suffice it to say that such a ground was not pleaded either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder. Besides that, the review petitioner did not raise the aforesaid issue at the time when the writ petition was heard. Therefore, the review petitioner cannot be permitted to urge a new plea in the review petition.
In view of preceding analysis, the judgment dated 5.8.2014 passed in W.P. No.1351/2012 neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of record nor any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. The petitioner in the garb of review, cannot be permitted to re-argue the writ petition de novo.
Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the review petition. Same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge