Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 412 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. Union Of India (Uoi)

2000-04-04

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this review petition alleging that certain aspects of the case alleged by him have not been considered by the Division Bench and it has finally decided the case. 2. Earlier the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of this bench hearing this review petition singly. That objection was overruled by the order dated 31.3.2000. Hence, this review petition was heard by me sitting singly because the other Hon'ble Judge continuing the bench Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Shivaraj V. Patil, as he then was, was not available for hearing. 3. The petitioner in the review petition has argued that he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Arvind Dattatraya Dhanda v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 S.C.C. (L & S) 1437 and he has also relied upon the decisions of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 72 and Express News Papers v. U.O.I., AIR 1986 SC 872 . These cases were not discussed by the Division Bench in detail in its judgment.3A. The petitioner has further submitted that the Division Bench has not called for the record which was before the Tribunal and, therefore, the full facts were not before it and in the absence of those facts, the writ petition has been decided. The writ petition filed by Mr. Mathur was not maintainable because before the Tribunal he has not filed reply and contested the case. 4. The petitioner has also submitted that the conduct of Mr. Mathur tantamounts to fraud and any judgment obtained by fraud cannot be sustained. 5. The petitioner has also submitted that the Division Bench has not considered the places of posting of Mr. Mathur, while decision the question whether the transfer order should quashed or not. 6. Lastly, the petitioner has submitted that the costs have been awarded without giving a notice to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner. As regard the case law cited by the petitioner, suffice it to say that the case law related to the implication of mala fides. The Tribunal has clearly held that there are no allegations of mala fides levelled against the respondents. Therefore, the aspect of mala fides is not germane in the case. In that view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner loses its significance. The Tribunal has clearly held that there are no allegations of mala fides levelled against the respondents. Therefore, the aspect of mala fides is not germane in the case. In that view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner loses its significance. In any case this cannot be a ground for review. 8. In deciding the writ petition, this Court was considering the decision of the Tribunal which has found that no allegations of mala fides have been levelled and the order of transfer can only be impugned in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decision including the decision of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 532 . The Division Bench considered that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the original application filed against the transfer order. None of the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions were available for quashing the transfer order. The record of the department was not summoned because it was not considered necessary to look into it. The non calling of the record cannot be made the subject matter of review. At what places Mr. Mathur respondent in review had remained has hardly any relevance because that was not the subject matter of the writ petition. 9. This Court was considering whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the simple order of transfer. That being the position the grounds raised by the petitioner does not require any interference in the review petition. 10. As regards the submission of the petitioner that costs have been awarded without giving any notice, suffice it to say that the costs are awarded when the conduct of the parties is scrutinised at the time of decision. Therefore, in this regard, the grievance of the petitioner is not genuine. 11. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in this review petition. Hence, there is no force in this review petition and the same is dismissed.Review Petition dismissed. *******