Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 244 (MP)

Manoj Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-02-21

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT : We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is an application preferred by the writ petitioner seeking review of our order dated 28-01-2011 passed in W.P. No.6717/2009 (PIL) whereby the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with the direction to the Registrar/Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur to hold election of the society de novo in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the our order directing to conduct election of the office bearers of the Society de novo, may be modified to the extent that the said election be held from the stage it was deferred. We have considered the submission. The writ petition was argued by Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate had appeared for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri Sudhir Shrivastava, learned counsel had appeared for the contesting respondent No.6. Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel had appeared for the intervener. The prayer to withdraw the writ petition was opposed by the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed before the Court that leave may be given to withdraw the writ petition, however, the respondents be commanded to hold the election of the society de novo. Therefore, the order dated 28-01-2011 was an order passed with the consent of the parties and, therefore, no ground is made out to review the same. 2. It is to be noted that the election of the office bearers of the society was earlier scheduled to be held on 13-3-2009, however, the same got postponed. Thereafter a period of about two years have passed yet election of the society could not be held. In that circumstance it was agreed upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the election be directed to be held de novo. It is to be noted that the review petition has not been filed by the same counsel who appeared in the writ petition and it has been filed through another counsel, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal. Normally, a review application is filed through the same counsel because he knows what had transpired during the proceedings of the Court. It is to be noted that the review petition has not been filed by the same counsel who appeared in the writ petition and it has been filed through another counsel, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal. Normally, a review application is filed through the same counsel because he knows what had transpired during the proceedings of the Court. Thus, the order dated 28-01-2011 being a consented order, there appears no ground or reason to review the same. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.