AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 263 wordsB. Bhattacharjee, J
Heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and also Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
By this review petition, the petitioner has sought for review of the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No.406 of 2018 and WP(C) No.408 of 2018. The prime contention raised in this petition is that the settlement agreement dated 17.09.2025, basing on which the aforementioned writ petitions were disposed of, was not entered into by an official of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023.
The learned counsels for the respondents resisted the plea of the review petitioner contending that the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot constitute a ground for review of the order.
A perusal of the materials on record reveals that the agreement dated 17.09.2025 was entered into between the parties after the review petitioner was represented by an officer who was specifically authorised to negotiate the matter concerning WP(C) No.406 of 2018 and WP(C) No.408 of 2018. Nothing has been mentioned in the order that the said officer would represent the petitioner department in all subsequent proceedings of similar nature. Hence, the order dated 22.09.2025 does not in any way alter the provision of the Mediation Act, 2023.
As the settlement was attained after the review petitioner was represented by the authorised officer, this Court finds no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.