AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J—The applicant seeks review of the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1609 of 2015.
The stand of the applicant in the review application is that the while passing the order under review, the Court has not considered the entire facts as stated in the writ petition and also the ratio laid down in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2009 SC 1399 : (2009) 1 JT 96 : (2009) 1 SCALE 63 : (2009) 2 SCC 592 : (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 411 : (2009) 3 SLR 506 : (2009) AIRSCW 854 , wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must consider the facts of each case. It is further contended that the counter affidavit is based on wrong facts. There is no finding as to whether the resolution passed by the respondent in the name of the Vendors Committee is bogus or genuine.
The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sodan Singh and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others, (1989) 3 JT 553 : (1989) 2 SCALE 430 : (1989) 4 SCC 155 : (1989) 3 SCR 1038 : (1990) 1 UJ 187 and Gainda Ram and Others Vs. M.C.D. and Others, (2010) 11 JT 228 : (2010) 11 SCALE 36 : (2010) 10 SCC 715 , without pointing out the ratio laid down in the said cases and also, the applicability of the ratio, to the facts of the present case.
The learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the same contentions and arguments as raised in the writ petition. He has further contended that the Court had come to a biased conclusion by ignoring the Supreme Court rulings, by permitting the others to run their shops in the street.
We have given our anxious consideration to the aforestated contentions and also perused the documents filed by the applicant in support of his contentions.
All the contentions are vague without any specific description of facts. The applicant has not pointed out that there is any error apparent on the face of record or any new or important evidence or material has been ignored, which could not be produced in the course of hearing of the writ petition. Further, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised by the applicant do not come within the ambit and scope of review jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 of CPC. All the aforestated contentions have been considered properly in the order dated 03.02.2015 sought to be reviewed in this application and no apparent error has been shown, warranting review.
The Supreme Court, in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 5 ABR 1267 : AIR 2013 SC 3301 : (2013) 4 CTC 882 : (2013) 4 RCR(Civil) 75 : (2013) 10 SCALE 113 : (2013) 8 SCC 320 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 96 , after referring to and considering various decisions on the scope of review in T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa and Another, AIR 1954 SC 440 : (1955) 1 SCR 250 , Sow Chandra Kante and Another Vs. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 : (1975) 1 SCC 674 : (1975) 3 SCR 933 : (1975) 7 UJ 324 , Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 : (1980) 2 SCC 167 : (1980) 2 SCR 650 : (1980) 45 STC 212 : (1980) 12 UJ 494 , S.L. Sachdev and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1981 SC 411 : (1980) LabIC 1321 : (1980) 4 SCC 562 : (1981) 1 SCR 971 : (1981) 1 SLJ 115 : (1980) 12 UJ 985 , Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455 : (1994) 7 JT 536 : (1994) 4 SCALE 985 : (1995) 1 SCC 170 : (1994) 5 SCR 503 Supp , Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1998) 1 CTC 25 : (1997) 8 JT 480 : (1997) 6 SCALE 432 : (1997) 8 SCC 715 : (1997) 4 SCR 470 Supp : (1997) 2 UJ 820 , Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 651 and Jain Studios Limited through its President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., AIR 2006 SC 2686 : (2006) 3 ARBLR 59 : (2006) 7 JT 40 : (2006) 7 SCALE 34 : (2006) 5 SCC 501 : (2006) 3 SCR 409 Supp : (2006) AIRSCW 3592 : (2006) 5 Supreme 369 , summarised the principle of maintainability of a review as under:
"Summary of the principles
Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
In the light of the aforestated well settled principles of law, the applicant has failed to establish any manifest error, except that according to the applicant, there was wrong appreciation of facts and law. As such, there is no case for review of the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in W.P. No. 1609 of 2015.
Resultantly, the review application is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.