Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 747 (RAJ)

Kanhaiya Lal Saini v. Kanhaiya Lal Saini

2005-03-03

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Honble HARBANS LAL, J.–The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks review of the other (Sic order) passed on 10.9.2004 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 592/2004. (2). Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondents-non-petitioners herein issued a notice on 29.3.2000 (Annexure 2) inviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of fair price shops mentioned therein as per the guidelines issued on 10.5.1999 (Annexure 3) for Jaipur City and Jaipur rural area. The petitioners being eligible for allotment of the Fair Price Shops applied for the same with necessary documents furnishing, requisite information. But the respondents- non-petitioners herein issued another notice/advertisement on 28.8.2001 inviting fresh application for allotment of fair price shops. The petitioners preferred a writ petition praying for quashing, of the notice/advertisement dated 28.8.2001 and direction to the respondents to allot the shops to the petitioner on the basis of selections made pursuant to the earlier notice dated 29.3.2000. Upon notice to the respondents-non-petitioners: they appeared through their advocate and filed their reply: The writ petition was ultimately disposed on 7.2.2003 in the basis of the statement/concession of the learned counsel for the respondents-non-petitioners that the case of the petitioners who had applied pursuant to the notice dated 29.3.2000 would be considered allotment of fair price shops on priority basis. The respondents-non-petitioners herein moved a review petition being S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 23/2003 seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 7.2.2003 which review petition was allowed and the order dated 7.2.2003 was recalled. The writ petition was reheard and decided afresh on 11.8.2004 granting liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice/advertisement for selection of dealers of fair price shops expecting from them to consider the application of the petitioners keeping in view the experience of running the fair price shops and in accordance with the provisions of law and the guidelines land down by the State for selection of dealers for running of fair price shops. (3). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.9.2004 with the observations that it was not the case of the appellants that any contract had come into being between the appellants and the respondents. (3). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.9.2004 with the observations that it was not the case of the appellants that any contract had come into being between the appellants and the respondents. The appellants were merely applicants seeking permission to run the fair price shops on license basis, the process of selection had not culminated into agreement between the parties and, therefore, the decision of the respondents to issue fresh notice/ advertisement inviting applications for grant of license to run the fair price shop did not infringe any of the legal rights of the appellants. The said order is sought to be reviewed in this petition. (4). We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the relevant record. (5). It is contended that after once inviting applications for allotment of fair price shops and after due selections of the petitioners, therefore, the respondents could not re-start the process afresh for distributing the public largess to the chosen few. The process sought to be fair and transparent. They are estopped from doing so due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and principle of legitimate expection. (6). The scope of review is very limited. It has been clearly held in a catena of cases that a judgment/order may be open to review under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face f record justifying exercise of power of review. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. There is clearly distinction between an `erroneous decision and `an error apparent on the face of record. While the former can be corrected by higher forum, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. A review petition has, therefore, a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be appeal in disguise. (7). There is clearly distinction between an `erroneous decision and `an error apparent on the face of record. While the former can be corrected by higher forum, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. A review petition has, therefore, a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be appeal in disguise. (7). In the instant case, a bare perusal of review petition reveals that neither `any error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out in the order sought to be reviewed nor it has been pleaded that some new material or evidence has been discovered or there is any other sufficient cause for review of the order in question. The pleas of doctrine of estoppel and principle of legitimate expectations were also not raised in the appeal and these new pleas cannot be permitted to be raised in review. (8). Thus, this review petition being absolutely devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.