Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Pushp Kumar Gupta And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 April, 2013

Author: V.K. Bist

Bench: V.K. Bist

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 MCC Review Application No. 136 of 2013
             CLMA Delay Condonation Application No. 3192 of 2013
                                    In
                  SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2012
Pushp Kumar Gupta and another.                                      .......Appellants.

                                         Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.                   ..................Respondents.

Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Swapnil Bisht and Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Saxena, Advocates for the appellants/ applicants.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1, 2
and 5.
Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent no. 4.



Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.

Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

There is some delay in filing the present Review Application. Accordingly, an Application (CLMA No. 3192 of 2013) for condonation of delay has been filed, which is not being seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. We have also independently considered the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay, allow the Application and, thereby, condone the delay.

2. In the judgment under review, there is not a single whisper about the merit of the ceiling proceedings. It is being contended that the ceiling proceeding has not yet been concluded. It is being submitted that the ceiling proceeding will be concluded only after notification under Section 14 is issued. That was not the subject matter of the writ petition. On the other hand, the subject matter of the writ petition was, whether the award could, at all, be challenged by the writ petitioners / appellants. There is, therefore, no scope of review. Review Application fails and the same is dismissed.

3. If a contention to that effect had been raised in the writ petition, but was not pressed, the same was not deliberately pressed and cannot be opened now.

4. After we passed this order, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he had pressed this point, but the Court did not consider the same. We reject the contention.

          (V.K. Bist, J.)                    (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
                             23.04.2013
Rathour