State of U.P. and Others vs Gyan Singh Yadav and Others

Uma Nath Singh, J.—This review petition under Chapter V, Rule XII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2010 passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 1357 (MB) of 2010 (Gyan Singh Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and others) on the grounds that by passing this judgment the discretion vested in the Central Registrar under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short ''The Central Act'') has been eroded; the Northern Railway Primary Cooperative Bank Limited (for short ''the NRPCB'') would not become a Multi State Cooperative Society only by the operation of the deeming provisions as provided u/s 103 of the Central Act, the Central Registrar was not impleaded as opposite party and the Central Registrar has held that the U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Limited is not a Multi State Cooperative Society as its objects are limited only to the State of U.P.

We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records. At the very outset, it would be apposite to note that the review of a judgment or order as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 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, CPC 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, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC 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 the aforesaid premises we have examined the judgment under challenge and we reiterate as noticed in our judgment under challenge that a sizable number of the members of Northern Railway Primary Cooperative Bank (the NRPCB) are settled or employed in the State of U.P. and the State of Uttarakhand/Uttaranchal, both, and this point has already been addressed in the impugned judgment. We have noticed all the relevant judgments and Acts in great detail and we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in terms of the ratio as laid down herein above nor is there any sufficient reason shown to interfere. Rather it appears that the State of U.P. has exceeded its brief in pleading that by passing the impugned judgment the discretion vested in the Central Registrar has been eroded and that the Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies has not been impleaded as a party. It only goes to show as to how some vested interest in the State Government and the Northern Railways have joined hands in order to control the huge corpus of the Bank worth over Rs. 250 crores collected by way of contributions from the hard earned money of Railway workers comprising mostly Class III and Class IV employees despite a note of caution recorded by this Court in the impugned judgment. It also appears that the said judgment was challenged by way of a SLP in the Hon''ble Supreme Court but the petitioners have neither filed a copy of the order of dismissal as withdrawn, nor has referred it in this review petition. Thus, this review petition deserves to be dismissed.

Hence, it is dismissed as such.