Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 18 (GAU)

State of Mizoram v. Pu. Shvanhnuat and Ors.

2002-01-08

P.C.PHUKAN, R.S.MONGIA

body2002
P.C. PHUKAN, J- We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the review petitioner State of Mizoram represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Mizoram, 2. The petition is for review of the order dated 8.12.99 passed by the Division Bench of this Court disposing of the Writ Appeal No. 69/98 preferred against the order dated 7.1.98 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court dismissirig the Civil Rule No. 2112/92 filed by the opposite party No. 1, the writ petitioner Pu Shvanhnu At, President of Mizo Chief Council. 3. As per SI. 2 of the Registry Check Slip the appeal was disposed of on 8.12.99 and the review petition was filed after 169 days and hence is barred by limitation, and no condonation petition has been filed. 4. In the State of Gujarat-Vs-Sardarbegum & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 416 , the Supreme Court found that the High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the State respondents to pay to the writ petitioner and his heirs a sum of Rs.500/- per month by way of political pension. Being aggrieved, the State respondents filed a petition for review of the said order allowing the writ petition on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of it. The Supreme Court has observed and held - "6. The High Court has declined the review application mainly on the ground that it was time barred under Article 124 of the Limitation Act and no sufficient ground for condonation of the delay had been alleged or made out. 9. ... While the State conceded the writ applicant's claim to the pension at the rate of Rs.500, the writ applicant also by way of a reciprocal concession, gave up his claim to get the pension "in perpetuity" and got these words deleted from the prayer clause of his writ application. The inevitable implication of such deletion was that the claim of the writ applicant had become limited to pension payable for the lifetime of the writ applicant. The High Court therefore manifestly erred inasmuch as it directed the State to pay pension at the rate of Rs.500 per month, even to the heirs of the deceased in their own right. The inevitable implication of such deletion was that the claim of the writ applicant had become limited to pension payable for the lifetime of the writ applicant. The High Court therefore manifestly erred inasmuch as it directed the State to pay pension at the rate of Rs.500 per month, even to the heirs of the deceased in their own right. This patent error - which was perhaps due to inadvertence-could and should have been suo motu corrected by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the ordinary period of limitation, if any, prescribed for a review application." 5. Even assuming that strict principles of Limitation Act are not applicable to a writ petition, the instant petition for review filed after 169 days deserves to be dismissed on merit for reasons stated hereinafter. 6. The operative portion of the impugned appellate order dated 8.12.99 reads - "In view of the agreement arrived at between the counsel for the parties we hereby dispose of this appeal with the observations and directions that the Government of Mizoram would consider the claim of village chief in consultation with Union of India expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. While assessing the compensation, the observations of the learned Single Judge would not be kept in view by the Government of Mizoram. If village chief is not satisfied with the order to be passed, he would be entitled to seek the redressal of his grievances before an appropriate forum." 7. The review of the above order is sought on the sole ground that the learned counsel for the State respondents due to a bona fide mistake agreed that the State respondents would consider the claim of compensation of the Village Chief, whereas u/s 52(3) of the North Eastern Area (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, all rights, liabilities and obligations of the existing State of Assam in relation to the Mizo district (all the composite State of Mizoram) shall be the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Union of India. There is nothing in the impugned appellate order directing the State respondents to pay compensation to the Village Chiefs in violation of any provisions of any law, and for that matter, the provisions of the North Eastern Area (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. There is nothing in the impugned appellate order directing the State respondents to pay compensation to the Village Chiefs in violation of any provisions of any law, and for that matter, the provisions of the North Eastern Area (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. The State respondents have been directed only to "consider the claim of Village Chief in consultation with the Union of India". Obviously, as per the impugned appellate order, the State respondents are required to consider the case of compensation of the Village Chief in accordance with law and not in violation of any law. It is an innocuous order without any patent error. 8. In view of what has been stated above, we do not consider that there is any ground for review of the appellate order dated 8.12.99. 9. In the result, the review petition is dismissed.