Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 546 (MP)

Ram Sewak Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-05-06

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment Heard. 2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dt.5.4.2014 passed in W.P.No.2179/2014. 3. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the review petition is that there was no due in regard to the payment of tax against the petitioner, hence, the petitioner can not be penalised in regard to the dues, which were outstanding against his son. 4. This point has already been considered by us in para 8 of the order under review. We have recorded following findings :- “(8) On perusal of the order impugned, it is gathered that the learned STAT, in para 52, has held that plea taken by the revisionist is worth acceptable that the sons of respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) are in arrears of tax of lacs of the rupees and also the proof of it has been filed. It is further mentioned by the learned STAT in the said para that when this objection was raised before the Regional Transport Authority it ought to have been resolved at the moment. The sons of respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) are in arrears of taxes of lacs of rupees and they are all doing the same business being the members of joint family and therefore they cannot be considered to be separate and thus the petitioner is not entitled to new permit.” 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the judgment in State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 6. In our opinion, the judgment cited by the learned senior counsel is distinguishable on facts. When the point has already been considered by us in the order under review, hence, it could not be reopened and considered again. In our opinion, there is no apparent error on the face of record, hence, the review petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. When the point has already been considered by us in the order under review, hence, it could not be reopened and considered again. In our opinion, there is no apparent error on the face of record, hence, the review petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarised as follows : When the review will be maintainable : (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. 7. The words “any other sufficient reasons” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.” The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. When the review will not be maintainable : (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main mater had been negatived.” 8. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main mater had been negatived.” 8. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.