Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 384 (ORI)

Kamal Lochan Das v. State of Orissa

2007-05-18

A.S.NAIDU, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2007
JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. : This Review Petition has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.5801 of 2003. 2. The aforesaid Writ Petition had been filed by present opposite party No.5 Rama Chandra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Writ Petitioner’) inter alia praying for cancellation of permission granted for installation of a stone crusher unit in favour of present petitioner Kamal Lochan Das (hereinafter re¬ferred to as the ‘Review Petitioner’) who was arrayed as opposite party No.5 in that Writ Petition. It was alleged that the said permission had been granted without keeping in mind the condi¬tions formulated by the State for installation of crusher units. The review petitioner had appeared before this Court and had filed a counter-affidavit, but then neither he nor his counsel did appear before the Court on 16.1.2004 when the Writ Petition had been listed for hearing. In order to grant him further oppor¬tunity to contest the case this Court, as it appears from the order-sheets, adjourned the case. Thereafter the matter was again listed for hearing on 5.2.2004, but still there was no appearance on behalf of the review petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, and perusing the Writ Petition and the affidavits filed by the opposite parties, this Court arrived at the conclusion that continuance of the stone crusher unit in question by the review petitioner was not in the interest of general public. This Court therefore quashed the permission granted in favour of the review petitioner to install/run the stone crusher unit and directed the State authorities to take appropriate action. 3. In the year 2004 the present Review Petition was filed with a delay of seventy-one days as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. A petition was filed to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition stating therein that due to sudden death of the paternal uncle of the counsel for the review petitioner he could not appear in Court on 19.1.2004, and further inadvertently he missed the cause-list on 5.2.2004 when the Writ Petition was disposed of. It was further stated that the review petitioner could know about disposal of the Writ Petition only in May, 2004 and thus there was delay. 4. Admittedly the Writ Petition was disposed of in Febru¬ary, 2004. It was further stated that the review petitioner could know about disposal of the Writ Petition only in May, 2004 and thus there was delay. 4. Admittedly the Writ Petition was disposed of in Febru¬ary, 2004. No document has been annexed to the petition for condonation of delay to substantiate the plea. To attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act a litigant is required to substantiate his case that he had sufficient cause for not preferring any application within the period of limita¬tion prescribed under the said Act. In the case at hand, except making some bald statements no attempt has been made by the review petitioner to substantiate his plea. 5. In consonance with the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, a judgment can be reviewed only if the same is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. In other words, after perusing the records the Court should be satisfied that there is an error, or there has been any serious irregularity in the proceeding amounting to violation of principles of natural jus¬tice; or a mistake has occurred by an erroneous assumption of fact which if allowed to stand would cause miscarriage of jus¬tice. 6. While disposing of the Writ Petition this Court took the entire facts and circumstances of the case into considera¬tion, perused the Writ Petition, the affidavits filed by the State Pollution Control Board and other authorities and on being satisfied that there was gross violation of the sitting criteria prescribed by the State for installation of stone crusher units, quashed the permission granted in favour of the review petition¬er. In the additional affidavit filed by the review petitioner, a stand has been taken that other stone crusher units are running in the locality in question. But then that cannot be a reason to permit the review petitioner to run his unit which is not permis¬sible under law having been set up in violation of the sitting criteria and pollution measures. Even otherwise known of the ingredients for reviewing an order are satisfied. This Court declines to entertain the Review Petition and, accordingly, dismisses the same. I. M. QUDDUSI, J., I agree. Rev. Petition dismissed.