# M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1193
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-18
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, A.C.J. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-chauhan-road-lines-and-another-v-union-of-india-and-others-42370
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Review
Application-mode of drafting with overall
dignity to the Court should be-instead of
using hard word "manifestly erred"-
descent and guarded words be used.

Held: Para 2

Before entering into the grounds of
review, we want to make it clear that
there should be a discipline in drafting of
review
application/s
because
it
is
normally placed before the Court which
has passed the original order but not
before any appellate Court. Therefore,
the review application is to be made with
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
descent
and
guarded
words
like
"escaped from the notice" etc. and not
with harsh words like "erred in holding"
or "manifestly erred in holding" or "failed
to appreciate" etc., which are normally
used in the case of appeal from one
Court to its superior Court. Necessity of
making the review application is not to
embarrass a Judge in person forgetting
his rigour and magnanimity but to
address the chair, which has passed the
original order, to re-apprise the fact and
law. Therefore, an application for review
can be pursued by eloquence and not by
the words of war. Hence, instead of
putting any cost for such type of
drafting, we warn the petitioners to be
careful in future.

## Text

3 All] M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another V. Union of India and others
1193

20. From the description of the
parties and the facts stated in the writ
petition, it is seen that the petitionerCompany is located in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, its Director is residing in the State
of Madhya Pradesh, the Bank which had
advanced loan to the petitioner-Company
is situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
the property that was auctioned and sold is
situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh
and the auction purchaser is also in the
State of Madhya Pradesh.

21. In M/s. Starling Agro Industries
(supra), the Full Bench of the Delhi High
Court observed that it is obligatory for the
Court to see the convenience of the parties
before it and the convenience will include
the existence of more appropriate forum,
expenses involved, the law relating to the
lis, verification of certain facts which are
necessary
for
adjudication
of
the
controversy.

22. It is also stated by learned
counsel for the respondents that the Bank
has in fact filed a writ petition in the
Madhya Pradesh High Court as it also felt
aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad.

23. It is in this context that the
doctrine of ''forum conveniens' has to be
examined and having so examined it and in
view of the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court
referred to above, there is no manner of
doubt that the more appropriate forum for
all the parties to agitate the matter would
be the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

24. The Court, therefore, refuses to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking
the
doctrine
of
''forum
conveniens'.

25. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 80076
of 2012.
IN
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37510 of
2011.

M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants /Petitioners:
Mr. R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Sri G.K. Malviya
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel For the Respondents:
Mr. Prakash Padia
S.C.
A.S.G.I.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Review
Application-mode of drafting with overall
dignity to the Court should be-instead of
using hard word "manifestly erred"-
descent and guarded words be used.

Held: Para 2

Before entering into the grounds of
review, we want to make it clear that
there should be a discipline in drafting of
review
application/s
because
it
is
normally placed before the Court which
has passed the original order but not
before any appellate Court. Therefore,
the review application is to be made with
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
descent
and
guarded
words
like
"escaped from the notice" etc. and not
with harsh words like "erred in holding"
or "manifestly erred in holding" or "failed
to appreciate" etc., which are normally
used in the case of appeal from one
Court to its superior Court. Necessity of
making the review application is not to
embarrass a Judge in person forgetting
his rigour and magnanimity but to
address the chair, which has passed the
original order, to re-apprise the fact and
law. Therefore, an application for review
can be pursued by eloquence and not by
the words of war. Hence, instead of
putting any cost for such type of
drafting, we warn the petitioners to be
careful in future.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, A.C.J.)

Amitava Lala, ACJ.-- This review
application has been made by the
applicants, the petitioners in the writ
petition, seeking review of the judgement
and order dated 31st January, 2012,
basically
for
two
reasons:
firstly,
admittedly no notice or opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioners in
respect of the enquiry by the enquiry
committee, which fact has escaped from
the notice of the Court in coming to
conclusion and the Court has held that
opportunity was given to the petitioners to
associate with the enquiry; and secondly,
there was no statement on the part of the
petitioners that the period of contract has
been extended for one year more after the
expiry of the period of contract but is
extendable for one year, however, due to
order of blacklisting the period of contract
was not extended by the respondents.

2. Before entering into the grounds
of review, we want to make it clear that
there should be a discipline in drafting of
review
application/s
because
it
is
normally placed before the Court which
has passed the original order but not
before any appellate Court. Therefore, the
review application is to be made with
descent and guarded words like "escaped
from the notice" etc. and not with harsh
words
like
"erred
in
holding"
or
"manifestly erred in holding" or "failed to
appreciate" etc., which are normally used
in the case of appeal from one Court to its
superior Court. Necessity of making the
review application is not to embarrass a
Judge in person forgetting his rigour and
magnanimity but to address the chair,
which has passed the original order, to reapprise the fact and law. Therefore, an
application for review can be pursued by
eloquence and not by the words of war.
Hence, instead of putting any cost for
such type of drafting, we warn the
petitioners to be careful in future.

3. Let a copy of the aforesaid
observations be also circulated by the
Registrar General of this Court amongst
the Bar to be careful in making review
applications in each and every Court of
justice for all time to come.

4. So far as merit is concerned, the
Court in the judgement dated 31st
January, 2012 has held as follows:

"The
Committee
has
given
opportunity to the transporter to associate
with the enquiry."

5.

However,
the
petitionersapplicants submitted that no notice or
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioners in the enquiry and this
averment has not been denied by the
respondents.
In
this
regard,
the
respondents themselves have stated in
paragraph-56 of the counter affidavit as
under:
3 All] M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another V. Union of India and others
1195

"56. .... There was no requirement for
the Corporation to associate the petitioner
with the said enquiry. Moreover, nothing
has been stated that what prejudice has
been caused to the petitioner even if the
petitioner was not permitted to associate
with the enquiry. ...."

6. Therefore, the applicants are
correct in saying that this part of the fact
has escaped from the notice of the Court
which is a good ground of review.

7. So far as second ground is
concerned, we can distinctly remember
that Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, had
placed the matter at the time of admission
of the writ petition by saying that the
period of contract has been extended by
the respondents for one year more on one
hand and, on the other hand, petitioners'
entire fleet has been blacklisted. The
Court
had
accepted
such
verbal
submission of the learned Senior Counsel
even when no objection was raised by the
learned Counsel for the respondentsIndian Oil Corporation. Thereafter, when
the Court was about to pronounce the
judgement only on such submission, Mr.
Prakash Padia, learned Counsel appearing
for
the
respondents-Indian
Oil
Corporation, categorically stated that the
period of contract was not extended after
the period of two years, therefore, the
contract is over by March/April, 2011.
Hence, the writ petition is infructuous.
Thus, no relief could be granted to the
petitioners by the Court and accordingly
under the judgement and order dated 31st
January, 2012 no relief had been granted.
Therefore, now the explanation of Mr.
R.N. Singh that the period is extendable,
cannot be a logical ground for the purpose
of review. It would have been a logical
ground had the authority, in one hand,
extended the period of contract and, on
the other hand, imposed the blacklisting,
which is definitely total non-application
of mind and arbitrary action and cannot
stand at all. But the case of the petitioners
is not so. Hence, the second ground of
Mr. Singh cannot be accepted.

8. So far as additional issue as to
what is the date of completion of two
years of blacklisting, particularly when
from the order impugned it appears to be
two years from the date of order dated
24th June, 2011, is concerned, Mr. R.N.
Singh has contended that two years'
period will be completed by 14th
September, 2012 from the date of
blacklisting i.e. 14th September, 2010 but
by virtue of this order dated 24th June,
2011 it appears to be extended by 24th
June, 2013. However, Mr. Padia has
clarified the position in paragraph-7 of the
supplementary counter affidavit by saying
that two years' period, which started from
17th September, 2010, will come to an
end on 16th September, 2012. Therefore,
by no means it can be construed that the
period is going to expire by 24th June,
2013.

9. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we are of the view that the
equitable principles can be applied in this
situation in favour of the petitioners
particularly when the matter is under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and also on the basis of the following
observations made in the order dated 31st
January, 2012:

"According to us, it is a matter of
blacklisting, that too not with regard to
one or two vehicles of a transporter but in
respect of the entire fleet, which were not
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
involved in the alleged malpractice.
When such type of decisions are to be
taken by any authority, it has to be very
much cautious about passing of such
drastic order of blacklisting the entire
fleet. When the respondents themselves
are adjudicators, they should be sincere in
coming to appropriate conclusion so that
the order of blacklisting may not seem to
be disproportionate."

10. Thus, in totality, we find that the
petitioners succeed in first issue and also
in the additional issue but do not succeed
in the second issue. Therefore, our overall
view is that the writ petition should not be
treated as dismissed but as disposed of.
Opportunity of hearing will be given to
the petitioners by the enquiry committee.
Since
admittedly
the
period
of
blacklisting for two years has already
ended by 16th September, 2012, the entire
fleet of the petitioners are free to render
their business. However, the involved
vehicle, being TT No. UP 80 BJ 9458,
and the vehicle apprehended to be
involved, being TT No. UP 78 AN 2061,
can be called upon in case of enquiry by
giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and that too within a limited
period, which by no means will go
beyond one month from the date of
communication of this order .

11.

Accordingly,
the
review
application is disposed of, however,
without any order as to costs.

12. However, passing of this order
will in no way affect the petitioners' right,
if any, to proceed before the appropriate
Court/ forum/authority independently in
accordance with law, if any further
development has taken place between the
period from reserving the judgement and
its pronouncement.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38098 of 1994

Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo
...Petitioner.
Versus
Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task
Force), Bareilly & Ors
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.C. Katiyar
Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri Sharad Chandra
Sri V.K. Katiyar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,Article
226cancellation of appointment-on ground
of false declaration in affidavit as no
criminal case pending against him-on
verification it was found the F.I.R. Was
lodged in which petitioner also a coaccused-while in charge sheet as well as
in order sheet and character certificate
issued by D.M.-petitioner no where in
existence
in
list
of
accused-when
petitioner not aware with the fact of
F.I.R.-no question of false decelerationpetition
allowed-consequential
directions given.

Held: Para 21

In the present case along with the
supplementary affidavit the petitioner
has filed the entire proceedings before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate to show
that at any stage, no summon or notice
has been issued to the petitioner. It was