Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1842 (ALL)

GOVIND SINGH v. STATE OF U. P

2003-08-19

G.K.GUPTA, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2003
JAGDISH BHALLA, J. ( 1 ) RESERVED this review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 21. 4. 2003 passed in writ petition no. 78 of 2003. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has filed the aforesaid writ petition no. 78 of 2003[mb] praying inter-alia therein to quash the auction dated 31st December, 2002 held for granting mining concession in respect of Tehsil Garautha, district Jhansi. It was also prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to hold auction afresh and accept the offer of the petitioner for rs. 50. 00 lacs for settling the auction in his favour. ( 3 ) ULTIMATELY, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally in view of the highest bid of opposite party no. 4, which he indicated by filing a second affidavit and thereafter no new bid was offered by the appellant higher than the bid of respondent no. 4. and it was also observed that opposite party no. 4-Satyendra Tripathi has a right to continue with the lease, which has already been executed in his favour. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 21. 4. 2003, the petitioner preferred special Leave Petition No. 8682 of 2003 before Honble the Supreme court and the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 9. 5. 2003 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The order dated 9. 5. 2003 reads as under:-" The learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner Govind Singh did make a bid higher than the bid made by the respondent no. 3, Satyendra Tripathi, whose bid has been accepted by the High Court. We do not find any such thing reflected in the order of the High Court. If what the petitioner says is correct, then he is at liberty to approach the High Court. Subject to the above-said observation, the special leave petition is dismissed. " ( 5 ) IT is in this background that the petitioner has filed this Review petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) SRI Nageshwar Rao, Senior Advocate while addressing this Court on Review Petition stated that he does not want to press the plea made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant before the Apex Court that the petitioner, Govind Singh did make a bid higher than the bid made by respondent no. 4, Satyendra Tripathi. ( 6 ) SRI Nageshwar Rao, Senior Advocate while addressing this Court on Review Petition stated that he does not want to press the plea made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant before the Apex Court that the petitioner, Govind Singh did make a bid higher than the bid made by respondent no. 4, Satyendra Tripathi. He further stated that the appellant also does not want to press certain portion of the affidavit filed in support of application for interim relief and has filed better affidavit. Further, he in all fairness conceded that there is no apparent error in the judgment and order dated 21. 4. 2003 but submitted that the petitioner is ready to offer Rs. 80 lacs for the said contract although contract has already been concluded. He also fairly conceded that there is no apparent error in the judgment and order dated 21. 4. 2003 but submitted that if a fresh auction would have been directed, several other persons would have also got a chance to participate and there may be a bid higher than the bid made by the opposite party no. 4. According to him, if other interested persons would have been allowed to participate, it may have crossed Rs. One crore resulting huge profit to the government exchequer. ( 7 ) IN support of his contention that if a fresh auction is allowed in respect of the area mentioned hereinabove, it will benefit the State ex-chequer, the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court presided over by Honble the Chief Justice in the matter of M/s Harihar Contractors vs. State of U. P. and others [ writ petition No. 12599 of 2003]. ( 8 ) SRI Anil Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4-Satyendra Tripathi submitted that the review petition is liable to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. It is shocking that the petitioner has made an absolutely false and wrong statement before the Apex Court that he did make a bid higher than the bid made by the respondent no. 4 and had even showed a courage to say so before this Court although there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had made any bid higher than the bid made by the respondent no. 4. 4 and had even showed a courage to say so before this Court although there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had made any bid higher than the bid made by the respondent no. 4. Learned Counsel requested that in order to maintain dignity, matter may be taken up seriously and stern action shall be taken against the petitioner for making a false statement and filing false affidavit so that other may not dare to do so. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Sri Anil Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4, when it has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no error apparent on the face of record in the judgment, this court cannot show interference on the facts which have been advanced for the first time in the Review Petition and were not at all raised in the writ petition. Elaborating further, he submitted that scope of review has also been limited by the Supreme Court by saying that if the statement made by the petitioner is correct, then he is at liberty to approach the high Court. The Statement made on behalf of the petitioner was that the petitioner-Govind Singh did make a bid higher than the bid made by respondent no. 3 and this point has been given up by the petitioner while arguing in this Review Petition as such review petition is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) RELYING upon the decisions given in Dr. Janak Raj Jai Versus h. D. Deve Gowda [1997] 10 SCC 462 and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma; AIR 1979 SC 1047 , Sri Anil Tewari contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise new facts, which he has not taken in the writ petition. However, he added that the power of review can be exercised when the order sought to be reviewed has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the order and further raising new facts in review is prohibited. ( 11 ) WE find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the order and further raising new facts in review is prohibited. ( 11 ) WE find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 12 ) IN our view, the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or to prevent miscarriage of justice and further there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. It is a settled position that in a review petition new grounds could not be urged. We are further of the opinion that showing interference in review on the facts suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that fresh auction will enhance the public ex-chequer although the contract has already been completed is like opening a Pandoras box and then there will be no end of litigation or in other words it will be practically impossible for the court to curb multiplicity of the litigation. ( 13 ) IN view of the above,the decision rendered in M/s Harihar contractors vs. State of U. P. and others [supra] relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no avail. Further ,in this case, the bid of one of the respondents was accepted before the conclusion of the enquiry, specially when the bid of respondent no. 4 was substantially lower than the reserve price and also when a positive offer of 2% above the reserve price has already been made. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that serious irregularities have been committed while auctioning mining rights of minor minerals and, therefore, the Bench ordered re-auction of the area in accordance with the rules and the government orders. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons indicated above, we are of the considered opinion that since contract has already been concluded, there appears to be no reasonable or justified ground to re-open the matter inviting the petitioner and others to bid again. Accordingly the review petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.