# Smt. Neelam & Ors v. Nawab Ahamad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 29
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3392 of 2014
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neelam-ors-v-nawab-ahamad-ors-43085
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section221-readwith C.P.C. Order 47-Power of
review by accident claim Tribunal-except
the provisions contained under Section
221-no other provision of Civil code
applicable-review
being
creature
of
statute-in absence of power to reviewTribunal rightly rejected-no interference
in appeal required.
Held: Para-9
From the aforesaid, what emerges is that if
Statutory
Authority/Quasi
Judicial
Officer/Tribunal, does not have any express
power of review under the Statutes, the
subsequent
order
passed
by
it
recalling/modifying or reversing its earlier
order is nullity, as such order is non est and
void. Therefore, we are of the view that
there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned award which is hereby confirmed.
Case Law discussed:
(2011) 4 SCC 750
30
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

1 All]. Smt. Neelam & Ors. Vs. Nawab Ahamad & Ors.
29
order. The petition sans merits and is
liable to be dismissed.
15. While dismissing this petition
this Court with object to secure the ends
of justice issue following directions:-
16. That if the case has not yet been
committed to the court of Session be commit
by the concerned learned Magistrate within a
period of two weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
17. If the case has already been
committed to the Court of Session, the
learned Sessions Judge or any other Court
where trial is pending, shall expedite the
hearing of trial by strictly observing the
provisions contained in Section 309
Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case on
day to day basis.
18. The trial Court shall make an
endeavor to conclude the trial within a
period of six months from the date of
communication of this order.
19.
It is also made clear that learned
Magistrate or the trial court, as the case may
be, shall not grant any frivolous adjournments
to the accused petitioners. If the accused
persons try to prolong the proceedings by
seeking
unnecessary
adjournments,
the
coercive steps may be adopted against them
including cancellation of bail, if required.
20. The Office shall ensure that the
copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sitapur
and Sessions Judge Sitapur positively
within a period of 10 days from today.
The learned Magistrate and learned
Sessions Judge as the case may be, shall
comply with the order in letter and spirit.
21.
The Senior Registrar of the Court
shall ensure the compliance of this order.
22. In view of the above this petition
is dismissed with aforesaid directions.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 3392 of 2014
Smt. Neelam & Ors.
 Appellants
Versus
Nawab Ahamad & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
--
U.P. Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section221-readwith C.P.C. Order 47-Power of
review by accident claim Tribunal-except
the provisions contained under Section
221-no other provision of Civil code
applicable-review
being
creature
of
statute-in absence of power to reviewTribunal rightly rejected-no interference
in appeal required.
Held: Para-9
From the aforesaid, what emerges is that if
Statutory
Authority/Quasi
Judicial
Officer/Tribunal, does not have any express
power of review under the Statutes, the
subsequent
order
passed
by
it
recalling/modifying or reversing its earlier
order is nullity, as such order is non est and
void. Therefore, we are of the view that
there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned award which is hereby confirmed.
Case Law discussed:
(2011) 4 SCC 750
30
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants and perused the
record.
2. Claim Petition No. 23 of 2009
was filed by the claimants/appellants
against
Nawab
Ahmad
and
others,
claiming compensation for the death of
Vijay Kumar Agarwal in a road accident.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bulandshahr, vide judgment and award
dated 14.9.2010, dismissed the claim
petition on the ground that the claimants
have failed to establish that accident had
occurred due to carelessness of driver of
Santro Car No. H.R. 25A.J./8972.
3. Not being satisfied with the
judgment and award dated 14.9.2010,
claimants/appellants have filed a Review
Petition, bearing No. 18 of 2010, seeking
review of the judgment and award dated
14.9.2010. The Tribunal, after hearing the
parties and perusing the evidence on
record, dismissed the review petition vide
judgment and order dated 26.9.2014,
which is impugned in the instant appeal,
holding that the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal has no power to review its award
and as such, review petition is not
maintainable.
4.

Counsel
for
the
claimants/appellants has submitted that
the Tribunal, while passing the judgment
and award dated 14.9.2010 in Claim
Petition No. 23 of 2009, had not taken
into consideration the entire facts and
evidence
on
record
and
erred
in
dismissing the Claim Petition. Therefore,
claimants/appellants had filed review
petition. The Court below, without
appreciating the evidence on record, erred
in dismissing the Review Petition by the
impugned order only on the ground that
the Review Petition is not maintainable.
5. A specific query was put to the
learned
Counsel
for
the
claimants/appellants as to whether there is
any specific provision in the Motor
Vehicles Act to review the judgment and
award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, the answer was in
negative.
6. At this juncture, we would like to
point out that Section 221 of the U.P.
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 deals with
the applicability of certain provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure and it reads
as under :
"221. Code of Civil Procedure to
apply in certain cases. The following
provisions of the First Schedule to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, so
far as may be, apply to proceedings
before the Claims Tribunal, namely, rules
9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V; Order
IX; rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII; rules 2 to
21 of Order XVI; Order XVII; and rules 1
to 3 of Order XXIII."
7. Order XLVII of the Code of Civil
Procedure deals with the power of review
conferred to the Court. A perusal of the
aforesaid Rule 221 would indicate that
Order XLVII which deals with the power
of review cannot be applied by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. Only the
provisions/Orders
mentioned
in
the
aforesaid Rule 221 can be applied by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Bimla Devi and others : 1999 1 TAC
449 (Alld. DB), a Division Bench of this
1 All]. Radheyshyam Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31
Court has held that the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal has no power to review.
In CTO v. Makkad Plastic Agencies
(2011) 4 SCC 750, the Apex Court
observed as follows:
"Review is a creature of statute and
such an order of review could be passed
only when an express power of review is
provided under statute. In the absence of
any statutory provision for review, exercise
of power of review under the garb of
clarification/ modification/correction is not
permissible."
9. From the aforesaid, what emerges is
that if Statutory Authority/Quasi Judicial
Officer/Tribunal, does not have any express
power of review under the Statutes, the
subsequent
order
passed
by
it
recalling/modifying or reversing its earlier
order is nullity, as such order is non est and
void. Therefore, we are of the view that there
is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned
award which is hereby confirmed.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the
appeal is dismissed. Under the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no
order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4649 of 2013
Radheyshyam Nishad
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Yadav, Sri Mahtab Husain
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
Constitution of India Art.- 226-Cancellation
of fair price shop license-in view of G.O.
17.08.2002-petitioner being resident of
another village-and the father's name
different than natural father-explanationthat petitioner was granted license on
consideration of fact that no any villager of
concern village willing to get license-and
being adopted son-difference of father
name
justified-held-G.
O.
having
no
applicability
of
retrospective
effect-not
applicable-non consideration of fact of
adoption-no misrepresentation on part of
petitioner found-cancellation-set-a-side.
Held: Para-7
We are of the view that the Government
Order dated 17th August 2002 cannot be
made applicable retrospectively, it only
applies prospectively and only applies in
a case of settlement of fresh fair price
shop in a village. So far as the parentage
of the petitioner is concerned, the name
of the real father of the petitioner was
Sukhdev. The petitioner explained that
he has been adopted by Faujdar Nishad
on 05.09.1974 and, therefore, he has
shown the name of his father as Faujdar
Nishad, which is not disputed by any of
the authority and, therefore, we do not
see any misrepresentation relating to the
disclosure of the parentage on the part
of the petitioner.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the order dated
18th October 2012 passed by respondent
no. 2- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
District Ghazipur by which fair price shop
licence has been cancelled on the ground