Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Saheli Patra (Maity) vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & ... on 23 July, 2019
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
10.
23-07-2019
debajyoti/kole
RVW 06 of 2015
with
CAN 1072 of 2015
in
FMA 4886 of 2015
Smt. Saheli Patra (Maity)
Vs.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee,
Mrs. Priyanka Mondal
.... For the Appellant/Petitioner.
Mr. Amitabh Shukla
.... For the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee .... For the Private Respondent.
Re : RVW 06 of 2015 This application has been taken out by the writ petitioner/appellant for review of a judgment and order dated 04th December, 2014 whereby the writ petitioner's appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court.
The material facts of the case are that both the writ petitioner and the private respondent applied for grant of LPG Distributorship at Digha in terms of a notice of appointment published on 16th September, 2007. The oil company assessed the credentials of the various intending parties and awarded the distributorship to the private respondent. The writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge with the grievance that the showroom which was offered by the private respondent was not located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG 2 Distributorship. The learned Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and found that the grievance of the writ petitioner did not have any basis. The writ petition was dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal.
The Division Bench found that the showroom that the private respondent offered was within the Digha Development Planning Area and there was no irregularity in the appointment of the private respondent on that score. Certain other grievances the Division Bench found to be having some substance. However, having observed so, the Division Bench considered the other facts and circumstances of the case and found that there was no malice in selecting the private respondent as the distributor. The authorities had taken a commercial decision after applying their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and after assessing the capabilities and credentials of the offerers. Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
We have gone through the judgment and order of the Division Bench. We find no error apparent on the face of the judgment. It is a well-reasoned judgment and the Division Bench has recorded the reasons for dismissing the appeal. It is trite law that a review cannot be permitted to become an appeal in disguise. A reviewing court does not function as an appellate court. If the review petitioner is aggrieved, she has her remedy before a higher forum.
We find no ground for reviewing the judgment and order of the Division Bench. None 3 of the grounds enshrined under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out.
Accordingly, this review application fails and is dismissed along with the connected application.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
( Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )