Viju P.V. vs Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Justice M.C. Hari Rani) was a party. The judgment was pronounced on 18.6.2008. The relevant portion in the said judgment appears in paragraph 8, which we extract below.

Para.8. The Director General of Police is directed to look into the commissions and omissions of the 11th respondent in occupying the building covered by Ext.P1 and the induction of two tenants, respondents 12 and 13. If it appears to the DGP that those matters disclose materials for taking disciplinary action against the 11th respondent, he shall bring it to the notice of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action against 11th respondent in accordance with law. The DGP shall also enquire into the complicity of the police officers stationed in Cochin City in the occupation of the building in question by the 11th respondent. If they have acted contrary to law, appropriate action shall be taken against the officers concerned also. The petitioner is entitled to get costs, which is quantified as Rs. 25,000/-. This shall be paid by the 11th respondent.

Later, an application was filed alleging that contempt has been committed by two respondents in not complying with the order. That contempt petition, (Con. Case (c) No. 893/2009) was disposed of by judgment dated 22.9.2009. The relevant observations/findings appear in paragraph 2 of the judgment, which we extract below:

para. 2. On issuance of notice, the Director General of Police has filed his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit narrating in detail that after giving opportunity to the complainant/petitioner herein, an enquiry has been conducted and necessary report has been forwarded to the Government. The holding of such enquiry is not disputed by the complainant. Since the only direction that this Court has issued in the writ petition is to hold enquiry and that has been complied with, we do not find that there is any disobedience, much less wilful disobedience, so as to initiate contempt proceedings. As the contempt petition is misconceived, the same is rejected.

The review petitioner at this stage has come before this Court with a prayer that the judgment may be reviewed.

What is the ground for review? The learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the direction was to the D.G.P. to enquire into the complicity of the Police Officers. But, instead he did not conduct an inquiry himself, but got the inquiry conducted by subordinate officers. The petitioner raised a further grievance that the Officer who conducted the inquiry was very much interested in the 11th respondent. Yet another contention is raised that a proper inquiry has not been conducted by that Officer.

The learned Counsel for the respondents opposes the application on various grounds. It is submitted that the review petition is belated. Secondly, it is contended that the review petitioner had participated in the inquiry that was conducted and that, that fact is already taken note of in the judgment rendered in the contempt petition.

We have considered the contentions. The crux of the contention is that an order passed in obedience to the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed is incorrect, improper and unacceptable. That according to us, is not a valid or justifiable ground to review the judgment. The subsequent order passed in pursuance of the judgment sought to be reviewed can be challenged in accordance with law. We find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting invocation of our jurisdiction in review.

This Writ Petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observation.