Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P.Throu Prin.Secy.Revenue ... vs Smt.Sunita Devi And Ors. on 24 January, 2020
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- REVIEW PETITION DEFECTIVE No. - 569 of 2012 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Throu Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.& Anr.7282(S/S)93 Respondent :- Smt.Sunita Devi And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Umesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(C.M. Application No.109301 of 2012) Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing review petition. Upon issuance of notices, Shri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of legal heir of the initial writ petitioner since the sole writ petitioner had passed away on 11th September 2005. Although, objections to application have been filed but learned counsel representing the opposite parties/writ petitioner does not object to the same and therefore delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
Order Date :- 24.1.2020 Subodh/-
Court No. - 17Case :- REVIEW PETITION DEFECTIVE No. - 569 of 2012 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Throu Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.& Anr.7282(S/S)93 Respondent :- Smt.Sunita Devi And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Umesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Review petition has been filed against judgment and order dated 07th September 2012 whereby writ petition that has been filed against the order of dismissal from service dated 31st March 1993 had been allowed, primarily, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
2. A perusal of judgment and order dated 07th September 2012 reveals that this Court had recorded submission of learned counsel for petitioner that charge-sheet dated 06th March 1992 was issued to petitioner requiring him to submit a reply by 21st March 1992 and was served upon petitioner on 28th March 1992. Since, petitioner did not submit his reply by the date fixed, which obviously was before the date on which petitioner actually received the charge-sheet, reply was not submitted and inquiry was thereafter concluded ex parte on the basis of which dismissal order dated 31st March 1993 was passed that is more than one year after the date on which petitioner received the charge-sheet. This Court had thereafter, allowed the writ petition, primarily, finding sheer violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of review petitioner has submitted that the petition has been allowed merely on the basis of submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner without independent application of mind and indicating the documents corroborating submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. As such, it is submitted that the same amounts to error apparent on the face of record.
4. Shri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal heirs of writ petitioner/opposite party rebutting the submission advanced by learned State Counsel has submitted that a perusal of the impugned judgment will clearly indicate that this Court had found violation of principles of natural justice upon corroborating submissions advanced by him since the impugned judgment clearly states that 'upon perusal of the record, I find that the documents itself establishes the sheer violation of principles of natural justice in the instant case.' As such, it has been submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record and the ground taken by learned State Counsel does not hold good for maintainability of review petition.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advance by learned counsel for parties, it is clear that the submissions advance by learned counsel for writ petitioner have been found established by this Court upon perusal of record and by recording that the document themselves establish violation of principles of natural justice. The said sentence in the judgment clearly indicates that submission advance by learned counsel for petitioner had been examined by this Court upon perusal of record and were found true on the basis of self explanatory documents on record. As such, independent application of mind by this Court is clearly established.
6. Even otherwise, none of the grounds taken in the review petition pertain to any error apparent on the face of record.
7. Shri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. vs. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. reported in 2004 LCD 1571 in which it has been held that has been heard and decided cannot it form a ground for review even if assuming that view taken in judgment under review is erroneous.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sivakami & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in (2018)4 Supreme Court Cases 587; has explained the scope of review petition in terms of order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 wherein very limited grounds are available pertaining primarily to error apparent on the face of record. A review petition cannot be entertained merely on account of the fact that another view is possible. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"18. The scope of the appellate powers and the review powers is well defined. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. The review petition/application cannot be decided like a regular intra court appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the Appellate Court."
9. In the present case, upon applicability of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the judgment under review has been passed after examining the material on record and as such there is no error apparent on the face of record.
10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.1.2020 Subodh/-