Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs B.P. Dubey on 6 January, 2015
W.A. No.530/2014
06.01.2015
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate
for the appellant/State.
Shri Aniruddh Pandey, Advocate for the
respondent.
The argument of the appellant that the decision in the case of Smt. Santosh Verma was inapplicable to the fact situation of the present case, was not raised before the learned Single Judge. That may involve analysis of the factual position in the present case to be juxtaposed with the statement of law occurring in Smt. Santosh Verma's case. It is, however, noticed that how the case of Smt. Santosh Verma is distinguishable, was not agitated before the learned Single Judge, else the impugned decision would have been dealt with that aspect of the matter. If the appellant had argued that issue before the learned Single Judge, then, the remedy of the appellant is to resort to review jurisdiction to point out to the same Court that the issue has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment.
Suffice it to observe that the argument posed before this Court in writ appeal is being raised for the first time in writ appeal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dispose of this writ appeal with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to remedy of review petition against the impugned decision, if so advised.
Disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (C.V.Sirpurkar)
Chief Justice Judge
DV