Showkat Ahmad Bhat vs Union Of India & Anr

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) Instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of judgment and order dated 04.03.2015 passed by this Court, whereby writ petition filed by the review petitioner has been dismissed. The review of the judgment is sought on the ground that the respondents have granted minimum wages and temporary status to the person who were engaged after the petitioner as a Casual Labourer and that this information was obtained by the review petitioner under Right to Information Act on 21st of August, 2018. The review of the aforesaid judgment and order has been sought by placing reliance on the aforesaid information which is stated to have come to his knowledge after the passing of impugned judgment and order.

2) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ record as well as the grounds of review.

3) Before coming to the merits of the review petition, it is necessary to notice the legal position as regards the scope of review jurisdiction by reference to relevant statutory provisions.

4) Rule 65 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 deals with power of the High Court with regard to the review of a judgment. It reads as under:

"65. Application for review of judgment- The Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the ground mentioned in order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code."

5) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a plea for review of a judgment can be entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here it would be apt to quote the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which reads as under:

"1. Application for review of judgment-"(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a court of small causes, and who, from the discovery of new an important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review.

[Explanation:- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for review of such judgment.] "

6) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that review of a judgment can be made on the following grounds:

(i) if it is shown by the aggrieved person that a new and important matter and evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him, has been discovered;

(ii) if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; and

(iii) for any other sufficient reason.

The expression "for any sufficient reason" has been interpreted by the Courts to mean a reason analogous to the first two reasons.

7) The ground urged by the petitioner for seeking review of the impugned judgment and order is that in the year 2018 he came to know about the information according to which certain other casual labourers have been granted minimum wages and temporary status while ignoring the petitioner. He has placed on record copy of information received by him under Right to Information Act in terms of communication dated

8) In order to succeed in persuading this Court to review the impugned judgment and order, the review petitioner in this case is required to satisfy this Court that a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner or could not be produced by him, has been discovered. It was for the petitioner to obtain the information in question from the respondents by having resort to the provisions contained in Right to Information Act. This he could have done even when the writ petition was pending before the Court but it appears that he did not choose to do so. This shows that the petitioner has not approached the matter with due diligence. Therefore, one of the most essential ingredients necessary for bringing the case of petitioner within the scope of review is missing in the instant case.

9) Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that in para (8) of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that in pursuance of application filed by him under Right to Information Act, respondents furnished details of the persons engaged on casual basis after the petitioner. This means that the requisite information was with the petitioner even at the time of filing of the writ petition. If review petitioner did not produce the said information before the Court during the writ proceedings, the fault lies with him only.

10) Apart from the above, the ground urged by the petitioner that the casual labourers junior to him were granted temporary status and minimum wages by the respondents was also projected by him in the writ petitioner were specifically denied by the respondents in their reply. The review petitioner cannot be heard to urge, in these proceedings, those grounds and contentions which have already been rejected by the Writ Court. The review proceedings cannot be given the colour of an appeal and even if the Writ Court has proceeded on an incorrect exposition of law or has taken a view which is not in accordance with law, the same cannot be examined or gone into in exercise of review jurisdiction.

11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this review petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed