# Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. Sri Narain

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-19
- **Bench:** Uma Nath Singh, Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-bhushan-pandey-v-sri-narain-42030
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-Review
Application-Writ
petition
dismissedpetitioner
not
within
meaning
of
"aggrieved
person"-hence
no
locus
standi-Review can be entertained strictly
within scope of order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 141 C.P.C.-no apparent error on
record or fallibility by over sighting by
the
court-disclosed-Application
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 15

In view of the abovesaid facts and taking
into consideration that the writ petition
filed by the review petitioner initially
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in
the subject matter, hence no right to
approach this Court by filling a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, so on the facts and
grounds on which the present review
petition filed, the same can not be
entertained and decided, because as
stated above under the garb of review, a
party cannot be permitted to re-open the
case and to gain a full-fledged inning, for
taking the Court to take a view contrary
to what had been taken earlier. Review
lies only when there is error apparent on
the face of the record and that fallibility
is by the over-sight of the Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1964 SC 1372; AIR 2002 SC 2537; AIR
1977 All. 163; AIR 1963 SC 1909; (2004) 5
SCC 353; (1980) 4 SCC 680; (1999) 9 SCC
323; AIR 2001 SC 2231; AIR 2003 SC 3365

## Text

3 All] C.B.Pandey 7770(M/B) 2011 V. Sri Narain Singh, Minister Of Horticulture Deptt. Lko.and others 1389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Review Petition No. - 294 of 2011

Chandra
Bhushan
Pandey
7770
(M/B)2011

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Narain Singh, Minister Of Horticulture
Deptt. Lko.and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pande

Constitution of India-Article 226-Review
Application-Writ
petition
dismissedpetitioner
not
within
meaning
of
"aggrieved
person"-hence
no
locus
standi-Review can be entertained strictly
within scope of order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 141 C.P.C.-no apparent error on
record or fallibility by over sighting by
the
court-disclosed-Application
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 15

In view of the abovesaid facts and taking
into consideration that the writ petition
filed by the review petitioner initially
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in
the subject matter, hence no right to
approach this Court by filling a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, so on the facts and
grounds on which the present review
petition filed, the same can not be
entertained and decided, because as
stated above under the garb of review, a
party cannot be permitted to re-open the
case and to gain a full-fledged inning, for
taking the Court to take a view contrary
to what had been taken earlier. Review
lies only when there is error apparent on
the face of the record and that fallibility
is by the over-sight of the Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1964 SC 1372; AIR 2002 SC 2537; AIR
1977 All. 163; AIR 1963 SC 1909; (2004) 5
SCC 353; (1980) 4 SCC 680; (1999) 9 SCC
323; AIR 2001 SC 2231; AIR 2003 SC 3365

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned
counsel for review petitioner and Sri J.N.
Mathur, learned Additional Advocate
General, State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Facts of the present case are that
review petitioner, Sri Chandra Bhushan
Pandey, initially approached this Court by
filling a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, and the reliefs
claimed by him petitioner in the Writ
Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 (
Chandra Bhushan Pandey Vs. Sri Narain
Singh
and
others)
are
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"i) to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus thereby directing the Minister
for Horticulture, the respondent no. 1 to
remove Sri Jeevan Lal Verma for the post
of his Personal Secretary.

ii) to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to respondent no. 2 hold an
enquiry regarding the misconduct of Sri
Jeevan Lal Verma.

iii) to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to respondent no. 3, the
Principal Secretary, Horticulture to ensure
the proper application of the order passed
by Principal Secretary dated 30th June,
2007 and to remove the officers wrongly
posted accordingly.

iv) to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent No. 1
and 3 to give dual charge to all District
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Horticulture Officers till the shortage of
cadre officers is fulfilled by fresh
appointment.

v) to issue a writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may also be issued in favour
of the petitioner."

3. By order dated 30.08.2011, the
above noted writ petition was dismissed
on the ground that the petitioner is not a
"person aggrieved" in regard to subject
matter involved in the instant case, hence
, he has no locus standi to file the present
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the observation
that "Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional
Advocate General, State of U.P. has very
fairly submitted that he will look into the
matter and bring it to the notice of
respondents no. 1 and 2 to take
appropriate action, if the same is correct.
We hope and trust on the submission
made by Sri Mathur, who will use his
office to do the needful."

4. Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel
for review petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a "person aggrieved" because
he is a citizen of India and being an
officer of the Horticulture Department as
well as the President of the Horticulture
Officers Association. Due to corruption
prevailing in the department the public
money is being mis-utilized and the
honest cadre officers including the
petitioner are being subjected to cruelty,
torture and misbehaviour. So, on the basis
of some judgments of the Hobn'ble
Supreme
Court,
which
were
not
applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the case, it is highly unjust, improper,
illegal and unconstitutional to not grant
relief to the petitioner, as such the
judgment needs to be reviewed.

5. He further submits that in spite of
the assurance given by Sri J.N. Mathur,
learned Additional Advocate General,
State of U.P. that he will look into the
matter and bring to the notice of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take
appropriate action, if the same is correct
but nothing has been done. Sri Jeevan Lal
Verma is still working as Personal
Secretary to Minister, posted against the
rules, still enjoying his office and the
petitioner who approach this Hon'ble
Court with an expectation that the Court
will do justice, has been transferred from
Headquarter to Sant Ravidas Nagar
(Bhadohi). So, the order dated 30.08.2011
may be reviewed.

6. Sri J.N. Mathur, learned AGA had
informed that the order dated 30.08.2011
of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.
7770 (MB) of 2011 ( Chandra Bhushan
Pandey Vs. Sri Narain Singh and others)
has been communicated to the Minister
concerned for necessary compliance.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned
Additional Advocate General, State of
Uttar Pradesh, the sole question which is
to be considered and decided in the
present case is the scope of review which
is summarized as under:-

8.

In
M/s.
Thungabhadra
Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh represented by the
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372,
The Apex Court held that a review is by
no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision is reheard and
3 All] C.B.Pandey 7770(M/B) 2011 V. Sri Narain Singh, Minister Of Horticulture Deptt. Lko.and others 1391
corrected. but lies only for patent error.
We do not consider that this furnishes a
suitable occasion for dealing with this
difference exhaustively or in any great
detail, but it would suffice for us to say
that
where
without
any
elaborate
argument one could point to the error and
say here is a substantial point of law
which stares one in the face, and there
could reasonably be no two opinions
entertained about it, a clear case of error
apparent on the face of the record would
be made out.

9. Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra &
Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex
Court emphasised that Court should not
be misguided and should not lightly
entertain the review application unless
there are circumstances falling within the
prescribed limits for that as the Courts
and Tribunal should not proceed to reexamine the matter as if it was an original
application before it for the reason that it
cannot be a scope of review.

10. This Court in the case of
Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977
All. 163, rejected the review application
filed on a ground which had not been
argued earlier because the counsel, at
initial stage, had committed mistake in
not relying on and arguing those points,
held as under:-

"It is not possible to review a
judgment only to give the petitioner a
fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to
judge of counsel's wisdom after the case
has been decided. It is for the counsel to
argue the case in the manner he thinks it
should be argued. Once the case has been
finally argued on merit and decided on
merit, no application for review lies on
the ground that the case should have been
differently argued."

11. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review
petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
the Supreme Court held that the power of
review
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, in reviewing its
own orders, every Court including High
Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by it.

12. Further, the review lies only on
the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule
1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party
must satisfy the Court that the matter or
evidence discovered by it at a subsequent
stage could not be discovered or produced
at the initial stage though it had acted with
due diligence. A party filing a review
application on the ground of any other "
sufficient reason" must satisfy that the
said reason is analogous to the conditions
mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.

13. Thus, in view of the abovesaid
facts, review can be allowed only on (1)
discovery of new and important matter of
evidence which, after exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge
of the person seeking review, or could not
be produced by him at the time when the
order was made, or (2) when some
mistake or error on the face of record is
found, or (3) on any analogous ground.
But review is not permissible on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits as the same would be the province
of an Appellate Court."

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs.
1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353,
after placing reliance on its earlier
judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs.
Registrar Supreme Court of India,
(1980) 4 SCC 680; Sutherdraraja Vs.
State, (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo
Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001
SC 2231; and Devender Pal Singh Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC
3365; observed that review applications
"are not to be filed for the pleasure of the
parties or even as a device for ventilating
remorselessness, but ought to be resorted
to with a great sense of responsibility as
well."

15. In view of the abovesaid facts
and taking into consideration that the writ
petition filed by the review petitioner
initially dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in
the subject matter, hence no right to
approach this Court by filling a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, so on the facts and
grounds on which the present review
petition filed, the same can not be
entertained and decided, because as stated
above under the garb of review, a party
cannot be permitted to re-open the case
and to gain a full-fledged inning, for
taking the Court to take a view contrary to
what had been taken earlier. Review lies
only when there is error apparent on the
face of the record and that fallibility is by
the over-sight of the Court.

16. For the foregoing reasons, the
review petition filed by the review
petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed.

17. No order as to costs.
--------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE D. K. UPADHYAYA, J.

Special Appeal No. 305 of 2007

Lal Bahadur Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.
State
Roadways
Transport
Corporation and others ...Respondents

U.P.S.R.T.C.
Employees
(other
than
officer) Regulation 1981-Regulation 67
(5)-Disciplinary
Proceeding-after
setting-a-side
earlier
dismissal
with
liberty to proceed in accordance with
law-subsequent
dismissal-without
reinstatement
without
treating
as
suspended employee-entire proceeding
with consequential dismissal-order held
illegal-quashed-direction
to
reinstate
and pay current salary and the salary
during suspension to Quash of dismissal
order-shall be subject to final outcome of
disciplinary proceedings.

Held: Para 11 and 18

Any order of punishment based on an
enquiry,
which
has
been
illegally
initiated or which is void cannot be
saved.
Simply
because
there
is
a
provision of deemed suspension under
Clause (5) of Regulation 67 of the
Regulations known as 'U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Employees (Other
than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981'
that would not give a defense to
U.P.S.R.T.C. to cover the default.

The legal position thus, is that on
quashing of the order of removal from
service, liberty to hold an enquiry afresh
from a particular stage could have been
availed of, only after the appellant was
reinstated into service and may be that
after
reinstatement,
the
appointing
authority could have passed an order of