Bhal Chandra Institute of Education and Management vs State of U.P.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for review petitioner as well as Mr. Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief standing counsel and perused the record. By means of the present review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 104 (MS) of 2013.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there is error apparent on the face of record by not considering in its true perspective the law laid down by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of N. Ammad Vs. The Manager, Emjay High School and Others, and an error apparent has occurred in the judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 by not considering the effect of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and consequently rendering the very concept of minority as recognized and more specifically contained in the statements and objects of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (for short ''the Act of 2004) and, as such, rendering redundant the provisions of the Central enactment and consequently depriving the petitioner-institution of the constitutional rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.

It is also submitted that by the judgment, under review, the Court has curtailed the rights of petitioner-institution to make admission of students on its own choice whereas the same has been consistently recognized by Hon''ble the Apex Court as being available to every minority institution. The Court has failed to appreciate that after grant of minority status by the Central Commission, the State Government ceases to exercise any power to regulate the affairs of the minority institutions and consequently the order dated 03.09.2012 could not be sustained being palpably without jurisdiction and authority of law.

It is also submitted that the Court while dismissing the writ petition has failed to take into consideration that the impugned order dated 03.09.2012 was passed mainly on two grounds; (i) after the petitioner-institution is granted minority status in pursuance of the certificate dated 02.07.2012 and is permitted to take students provided under Government Order dated 01.09.2011, then it would amount to withdrawing students studying in petitioner-institution; and (ii) there is no provision of being granted minority status with retrospective effect for the academic year 2011-12 on the basis of certificate dated 02.07.2012.

Submission is that both the conditions mentioned in the impugned order were wrong and factually incorrect as 20 students were not to be withdrawn and their admissions were not to be cancelled in view of the fact that 20 students had never sought admission in the petitioner-institution and the said seats remained vacant. It is wrong on behalf of the State Government to say that giving permission to fill up 20 seats on its own to the petitioner-institution would amount to giving minority status to petitioner-institution with retrospective effect inasmuch as the admissions for academic year 2011-12 were going on, which continued till March, 2013, as such, there was no question of giving minority status with retrospective effect.

The review application for review of order dated 03.09.2012 was rejected by the State Government by order dated 21.12.2012 in a most arbitrary manner.

Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, in order to elaborate his arguments, submitted that Article 30 of the Constitution of India provides the right to all the minorities religious or linguistic to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30 of the Constitution of India for convenience is reproduced below:

Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.--(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Submission is that a Minority Educational Institution from the date of its establishment become the Minority Educational Institution and no declaration to treat it as Minority Educational Institution is required under law.

In support of his submissions Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate laid heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Ammad Vs. The Manager, Emjay High School and Others, . He submits that ''Minority Educational Institutions'' would continue to be so irrespective of whether the Government declares it as such or not. The declaration made by the Government is at the best only a recognition of an existing fact. The relevant paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the of judgment in the case of N. Ammad (supra), on which reliance has been placed, on reproduction read as under:

In the light of the scheme of the Act out above relating to appointment of Headmaster in a minority school, we have now to consider whether the DEO can compel the management to appoint the appellant as Headmaster of the school. For answering the said question we have to deal with the first contention that the school could not have claimed any protection as a minority school before 2-8-1994, the date when Government declared the school as a minority school. The contention, in other words, is that the above declaration of the Government is only prospective.

"Minority School" is defined in Section 2(5) of the Act as under:

2(5) ''Minority school'' means school of their choice established and administered, or administered, by such minorities as have the right to do so under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution.

Counsel for both sides conceded that there is no provision in the Act which enables the Government to declare a school as minority school. If so, a school which is otherwise a minority school would continue to be so whether Government declared it as such or not. Declaration by the Government is at best only a recognition of an existing fact. Article 30(1) of the Constitution reads thus:

30(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

When the Government declared the school as a minority school it has recognised a factual position that the school was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the school can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 2-8-1994.

Further, it is submitted that in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the meaning of ''Minority Educational Institution,'' which as per Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 u/s 2(f) defines as under:

2(f) ''Minority Educational Institution'' means an institution established and administered by the minorities under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution and so declared by an Act of Parliament or by the Central Government or declared as a Minority Educational Institution under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (2 of 2005).

It is submitted that once the petitioner-institution was granted the status of ''Minority Educational Institution'' vide certificate dated 02.07.2012, it has all the rights to take admission on 20 seats which remained vacant after the allotment by the State Government through counselling for B.T.C. Course 2011-12.

Mr. Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there is no error apparent on the record of the judgment and order dated 27.2.2013. The review petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

It is submitted that on the one hand petitioner-institution claims for grant of status of ''Minority Educational Institution'' and for that purpose had applied to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (for short ''the National Commission'') and to the State Government, SCERT, etc. It had accepted the procedure for admission as prescribed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011 and on the other hand claim it to be a ''Minority Educational Institution'' right from its establishment i.e. since 2004.

The petitioner-institution was granted recognition by the NCTE on 05.08.2004 to run B.T.C. Course. It was granted affiliation by the State Government from the academic year 2010-11 which was extended vide order dated 17.5.2012 for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner-institution on its own had participated in the admission process including the counselling which was held sometime in the month of June for allotment of students in the academic year 2011-12 and it was allotted 50 students against the total sanctioned strength of 50 seats. At no point of time the petitioner-institution had raised any objection in this regard. It is only after the issuance of certificate dated 02.07.2012 by the National Commission that the petitioner-institution had put its claim to fill up 20 remaining vacant seats on its own, meaning thereby that the petitioner-institution has treated itself a ''Minority Educational Institution'' only after issuance of certificate dated 02.07.2012.

It is further submitted that the judgment in the case of N. Ammad Vs. The Manager, Emjay High School and Others, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the said judgment was delivered on 07.09.1998. At that time there was no central enactment occupying the field relating to declaration or grant of minority status certificate to the institutes which claim themselves to be ''Minority Educational Institutions''. After the enactment of Central Act i.e. National Commission for Minorities Educational Institutions Act, 2004 all the issues with regard to grant of minority status i.e. whether an institution is ''Minority Educational Institution'' or not, whether the minority institution has been deprived of its right and other incidental matters shall be looked into and adjudicated upon by the National Commission and it is the Apex Body which has to decide the aforesaid issue and on that basis the State Government has to grant recognition to an institution as ''Minority Educational Institution''.

It is submitted that the status of ''Minority Educational Institution'' has been granted to petitioner-institution vide certificate dated 02.07.2012 and as per admission procedure prescribed by the State Government for admission in B.T.C. Course which has also been accepted by the petitioner-institution, the petitioner-institution cannot claim the status of ''Minority Educational Institution'' prior to 02.07.2012 i.e. for the academic year 2011-12.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties'' counsel.

The petitioner-institution was granted recognition by the NCTE on 05.08.2004 to run B.T.C. Course. It was granted affiliation by the State Government from the academic year 2010-11 which was extended vide order dated 17.5.2012 for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner-institution was declared as ''Minority Educational Institution'' by the National Commission vide certificate dated 02.07.2012. It had approached the Court through Writ Petition No. 104 (MS) of 2013 claiming the benefits of ''Minority Educational Institution'' with retrospective effect i.e. from the academic year 2011-12. The prayer made in the Writ Petition No. 104 (MS) of 2013 was as under:

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may graciously be pleased to:--

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.09.2012 annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition to the extent it refuses the grant of minority status to the petitioner institution for BTC Course Session 2011-12;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner the Institution to take admission on 20 vacant seats of BTC Course Session 2011-12, considering it a Minority Institution.

(iii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon''ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;

and

(iv) allow the instant writ petition of the petitioner with appropriate costs in the interest of justice.

It is relevant to note that the State Government vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011 had issued admission procedure for admission in B.T.C. two years course. It provides that only 50 per cent seats shall be filled up through counselling by the district selection committee in the ''Minority Educational Institutions'' which have been granted recognition by the NCTE and affiliation by the State Government and have been declared as ''Minority Educational Institution'' by the State Government. For the remaining 50 per cent seats, the selection shall be made by the Institution as per the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 01.09.2011, the said provisions on reproduction would read as under:

(Vernacular matter omitted.......Ed.)

The petitioner-institution had applied on 08.11.2011 to the National Commission for grant of ''Minority Educational Institution'' status. During the pendency of its application before the National Commission, the petitioner-institution had written letter dated 10.11.2011 to the Director, SCERT that it has applied before the National Commission where its case is pending in which order is likely to be issued very soon, as such, students may be allotted only on 25 seats (50 per cent of total strength). The admission process for academic year 2011-12 had started in the year 2011 itself. The counselling for admission in two years B.T.C. Training Course were completed prior to June, 2012. 50 students (100 per cent of sanctioned strength) were allotted to petitioner-institution vide letter dated 14.6.2012. As per averments of petitioner, only 30 students had taken admission and rest of candidates had not taken admission. It was on 09.07.2012 that the petitioner-institution for the first time informed the Director, SCERT that it has been granted ''Minority Educational Institution'' certificate by the National Commission. It had also informed the Director, SCERT that on more than 50 per cent of the seats (30 seats out of total strength of 50 seats) admissions have been taken on the basis of allotment made by DIET, Lucknow through counselling and only 20 seats are vacant.

Contrary to the letter dated 09.07.2012, the petitioner-institution issued an advertisement wherein applications were invited for making admission on 50 per cent vacant seats in the institution in the academic year 2011-12, although 50 per cent seats were not vacant in the petitioner-institution.

It is to be noted that at the time of advertisement no formal order recognizing the petitioner-institution as ''Minority Educational Institution'' was issued by the State Government.

It is surprising to note that on the one hand petitioner, on its own, had accepted the procedure for admission as prescribed vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011 as it had participated in the counselling and on the basis of allotment issued by the DIET, Lucknow had given admission to the candidates, more than 50 per cent seats in the petitioner-institution were filled up through the counselling. As per the procedure prescribed by the said Government Order dated 01.09.2011 the candidates had to apply for admission in B.T.C. Training course and on the basis of merit list, the district level selection committee was to provide select list to the institutions duly recognized by the NCTE for B.T.C. Course and the institutions should give admission to the candidates from the said merit list. The petitioner had accepted the said admission procedure and had admitted candidates allotted by the DIET, Lucknow.

On the basis of certificate dated 02.07.2012 issued by the National Commission, the petitioner-institution had claimed allotment of only 50 per cent of its seats. Even in the advertisement issued by the petitioner-institution, it had only invited applications against 50 per cent seats. Moreover, it had preferred the Writ Petition No. 3955 (MS) of 2012 seeking direction to State Government to grant status of ''Minority Educational Institution''.

As such, it is evidently clear that petitioner had accepted the admission procedure as prescribed vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011, hence it can easily be concluded that it was not the case of petitioner right from the beginning that it is a ''Minority Educational Institution'' from the date of establishment and rather the petitioner-institution claims the ''Minority Educational Institution'' only on the basis of certificate dated 02.07.2012 and wanted 50 per cent seats to be filled up through counselling and remaining 50 per cent by the institution itself as provided vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011, hence petitioner-institution cannot be allowed to take contradictory stand and claim that it is a ''Minority Educational Institution'' right from its establishment for the purpose of admission to remaining vacant seats which had fallen vacant after the allotment to petitioner-institution vide letter dated 14.6.2012.

Once the petitioner-institution had accepted the admission procedure as prescribed vide Government Order dated 01.09.2011 and had participated in the admission process and had also accepted the allotment of students to it and had also given admission to them duly accepting that at the time when the admission process had started for the academic year 2011-12 it was not granted the status of ''Minority Educational Institution'', the petitioner-institution cannot turn around and say that it is entitled to get the benefits of ''Minority Educational Institution'', even prior to issuance of the certificate dated 02.07.2012.

Moreover, the Parliament has enacted the "National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004", an Act to constitute a National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions and to provide a forum for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It has come into force on 11.11.2004. As per definition Clause u/s 2(c) ''Commission'' means the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions constituted u/s 3. As per Section 2(ca) ''Competent Authority'' means the authority appointed by the appropriate Government to grant no objection certificate for the establishment of any educational institution of their choice by the minorities. Chapter III relates to right of a minority educational institution. Section 10 provides that whosoever desires to establish a minority educational institution may apply to the Competent Authority for the grant of no objection certificate for the said purpose, who shall on the basis of documents, affidavits and other evidence, if any, and after giving opportunity decide every application expeditiously and thereby issue no objection certificate. The applicant on the grant of no objection certificate be entitled to commence with the process of establishment of minority educational institution in accordance with rules and regulations. Chapter IV deals with the functions and powers of commission. u/s 11, the Commission is required to advise the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, relating to education of minorities, intervene in any proceeding involving any deprivation or violation of the educational rights of the minorities and decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as Minority Educational Institution and declare its status as such. Section 11 on reproduction reads as under:

Functions of Commission.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Commission shall--

(a) advise the Central Government or any State Government on any question relating to the education of minorities that may be referred to it;

(b) enquire, suo motu, or on a petition presented to it by any Minority Educational Institution, or any person on its behalf into complaints regarding deprivation or violation of rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and any dispute relating to affiliation to a University and report its finding to the appropriate Government for its implementation;

(c) intervene in any proceeding involving any deprivation or violation of the educational rights of the minorities before a court with the leave of such court.

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution, or any law for the time being in force, for the protection of educational rights of the minorities and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(e) specify measures to promote and preserve the minority status and character of institutions of their choice established by minorities;

(f) decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a Minority Educational Institution and declare its status as such;

(g) make recommendations to the appropriate Government for the effective, implementation of programmes and schemes relating to the Minority Educational Institutions; and

(h) do such other acts and things as may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the Commission.

After coming into force of the Act of 2004, the field relating to declaration of grant of minority status certificate to the institutions which claim themselves to be a ''Minority Educational Institution'' is occupied and is fully governed under the Act of 2004, as such, all the issues with regard to grant of minority status i.e. whether an institution is ''Minority Educational Institution'' or not, whether the minority institution has been deprived of its right and other incidental matters shall be looked into and adjudicated upon by the National Commission.

The National Commission conferred the minority status on the petitioner-institution only on 02.07.2012 and it was only after the conferment of the said status that the petitioner-institution started claiming rights which are available to a ''Minority Educational Institution''. The petitioner as such could not get the benefits of ''Minority Educational Institution'' prior to 02.07.2012. As such, in the admission process for the academic year 2011-12 which had started much before 02.07.2012, the petitioner-institution could not claim or get the benefits of ''Minority Educational Institution''.

It is also to be noted that had all the students allotted to petitioner-institution on 14.6.2012 by DIET, Lucknow taken admission, then there would not have been any question of claiming admission on its own by the petitioner-institution against the alleged vacant seats.

The case of N. Ammad Vs. The Manager, Emjay High School and Others, , on which heavy reliance has been laid by learned counsel for petitioner, the judgment was delivered on 07.09.1998. It has been observed by the Apex Court that no doubt when the Government declared the school as minority school it has recognized a factual position that the school was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the school could have claimed protection only after the Government declares it as minority school. However, in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed that ''absolute character of the right as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India will not preclude making of regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instruction, public order, etc. and said regulations (Act) are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution''. Para 15 of the said judgment on reproduction reads as under:

A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (AIR 1958 SC 956) has examined the constitutional validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the Act when President of India had sought the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. One of the propositions laid down by the said Constitution Bench in the said decision is this: The right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance of the right is void to be extent of infringement. But the absolute character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is to be noted that at the time when the said judgment was delivered there was no Central enactment occupying the field relating to declaration of grant of minority status certificate to the Institutes which claim themselves to be minority run institutions and it was in the year 2004 that the Parliament enacted National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act, 2004 (Act No. 2 of 2005), which came into force on 6th January, 2005. After the enactment of aforesaid Act, for the purpose of giving benefits of a ''Minority Educational Institution'', it is necessary to get a declaration under the said Act.

Even as per the case of petitioner, it has claimed the benefits of a ''Minority Educational Institution'' only after the issuance of certificate dated 02.07.2012 and the petitioner-institution itself has given option to the procedure prescribed for admission to B.T.C. Course for the academic year 2011-12, as such, it can easily be inferred that the rights of petitioner-institution as ''Minority Educational Institution'' ran from the certificate dated 02.07.2012 and the declaration made thereafter by the State Government dated 03.09.2012. The petitioner-institution cannot get the benefits of certificate dated 02.07.2012 with retrospective effect i.e. from the academic year 2011-12. Even in case the admission process for the academic year 2011-12 was not completed, it does not mean that the petitioner-institution after participation in the admission process as per procedure prescribed under the Government Order dated 01.09.2011 can be permitted to take admission of students on its own on the alleged vacant seats on the basis of certificate dated 02.07.2012.

The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is factually wrong so far as it mentions that the admitted students would have to be dislodged in case the benefit of certificate dated 02.07.2012 is extended to petitioner-institution for the academic year 2011-12 as no admissions were made on 20 seats and even two students who had taken admission on the basis of allotment by DIET, Lucknow have left and there are at present 22 vacant seats is concerned, even if it is accepted that the petitioner-institution has the aforesaid vacant seats even then it has no right to make admissions on its own on the said vacant seats on the basis of certificate dated 02.07.2012 as it would amount to giving effect to the said certificate from retrospective effect which cannot be permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Before parting with the judgment, it is also necessary to consider the scope of review.

By the present review petition, petitioner wants the entire case to be reconsidered on merit which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

The Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 254 of 2010; State of U.P. and others v. Gyan Singh Yadav and others had the occasion to discuss the scope of review. The relevant paragraphs on reproduction read as under:

At the very outset, it would be apposite to note that the review of a judgment or order as provided under Order XLVII, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be sought only on the grounds like: (a) that there is discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) that some important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) that there was some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or there is any other sufficient reason. It is also settled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

In the judgment of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, , it has been held as under:

An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.

Further that this ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, . The observations of Hon''ble the Apex Court reads as:

Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

The aforesaid views have again been reiterated by Hon''ble the Apex Court in a later judgment reported in Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others, . A similar view was also taken in another judgment reported in Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs., .

In yet another decision the Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 294 of 2011; Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. Sri. Narain Singh, Minister of Horticulture Deptt. Lko & Ors. has discussed in detail the scope of review, the relevant paragraphs are summarized as under:

In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, . The Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, , the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.

This Court in the case of Bhagwati Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another, , rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:--

It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel''s wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued.

In Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , in a review petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141, C.P.C. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of CPC.

Thus, in view of the above said facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others etc., , after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. AIR 1980 808 (SC); Suthenthiraraja @ Santhan and Others etc. etc. Vs. State Through DSP/CBI, SIT, Chennai etc. etc., ; Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam, ; and Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365; observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well.

In the aforesaid premises, I have examined the judgment under review and found that neither there is any error apparent on the face of record of judgment nor there is any sufficient reason to show any interference. The review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.