Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 37 (MEG)

RANBIR KUMAR v. R. BHATTACHARYA

2015-03-27

UMA NATH SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT I have heard review petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for respondent. This Review Petition has been filed against a judgment and order dated 29th September, 2014, passed in Contempt Case No. 13/2014 in WP(C) No. 372/2013 (Shri Ranbir Kumar vrs. Mr.Rajarshi Bhattacharya and Ors) whereby contempt petition was dismissed. The said order on reproduction reads as: “I have heard petitioner in person and Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings of contempt petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the non-compliance of directions issued in the judgment and order passed in WP(C)No. 372 of 2013 dated 10.06.2014, by the learned single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of the judgment vide paragraph 6 reads as under : “Taking into consideration of the fact that the contractual employment of the petitioner as a teacher was to be expired on March, 2014 and he had been paid salary up to February, 2014, the respondents are directed to pay the salary of March, 2014 to the petitioner within four weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. However, this Court is not making any opinion about the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 4. The petitioner may file complaint against the incumbent of the office of the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Laitkor Peak, Shillong to the competent authority.” 3. The petitioner in person, however, appears to be further aggrieved by his engagement only on contract basis for 2014- 2015 in another school which too has been terminated under the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner in person submits that he challenged the termination of his contractual appointment for 2014-2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Guwahati and the Tribunal has directed in Original Application No. 040/00226 of 2014 to dispose of his representation in a judicious manner. The said order on reproduction reads as : “Thereafter, applicant made an application before the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Guwahati Region, Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati on 07.07.2014 which is still pending. Let justice be done by directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the aforesaid pending representation dated 07.07.2014 in a judicious manner by passing a reasoned and speaking order by providing an opportunity of being heard. Let justice be done by directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the aforesaid pending representation dated 07.07.2014 in a judicious manner by passing a reasoned and speaking order by providing an opportunity of being heard. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage. No order as to costs” 4. Now the petitioner in person contends that the judgments passed in writ petition and the Original Application before the CAT, have not been complied with in toto, therefore, he has filed this contempt petition. It is his submission that unless the ratio decidendi as well as the obiter dicta, both are complied a simple compliance of direction would not satisfy him and thus, the respondents are still in contempt. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the respondents have already complied with the judgments by making payment of one month’s salary, and therefore, it is in correct to allege that the judgments of learned single Judge as well as the CAT as aforesaid have not been complemented. Thus, according to him, this contempt petition would not survive. It is also the contention that since the cause of action in the Original Application is separate, therefore, the same cannot be mixed up with the issues of the writ petition decided by learned single Judge. In fact the judgment of the CAT is an independent cause of action, and incase, the order of the Tribunal is not complied with, the petitioner may have separate remedy for that. As the judgment of learned single Judge has been complied with and one month’s salary has already been paid, I do not find any merit in the contempt petition, which is hereby dismissed. Incase the petitioner is aggrieved by non-compliance of the judgment and order of the CAT, it would be open for him to approach that forum to seek appropriate relief”. Now being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred this Review Petition on the grounds that there was non-compliance of Writ Court’s order and thus the order suffers from error apparent on the face of records. Now being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred this Review Petition on the grounds that there was non-compliance of Writ Court’s order and thus the order suffers from error apparent on the face of records. On due consideration, I do not find any merit in the Review petition for the reasons that the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important fact or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. This power can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. It may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. While hearing the Review petition, this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to general rules that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. This proposition of law has been laid down by Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of Indrachand Jain vrs Motilal reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 . The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised only within the limits of statute dealing with exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise (kindly see judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Lily Thomas vrs Union of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 . Even Section 114 CPC does not adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the Court. It simply says “may make such order thereon as it thinks fit”. The parameters of review are prescribed in order 47 of CPC, i.e. on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant and the latter to juridical action which is manifestly incorrect. The power to review has to be exercised with greatest circumspection. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant and the latter to juridical action which is manifestly incorrect. The power to review has to be exercised with greatest circumspection. No matter the ends of justice which are supreme have to be born in mind in deciding a lis and it has a virtue to transcend barriers of rules of procedure and technicalities of law, but the instant one is not a case of the kind where this Court can exercise the power of review. It is a review of order passed in contempt petition which was dismissed on the ground that the judgment passed in writ petition was complied. Vide writ judgment, sought to be enforced by way of contempt petition, it has been held that the petitioner was holding a contractual post as teacher which expired in March, 2014. The petitioner had been paid salary upto February, 2014. Therefore, the respondents, alleged contemnors, were directed to pay the salary of March, 2014. The respondents informed the Court that they have already complied with the judgment of writ court by making payment of one month’s salary for the month of March, 2014. Therefore, the contempt petition was dismissed. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record or any such ground, as discussed hereinabove, which may warrant the exercise of power of review. Moreover, the petitioner in person who comes from Ghaziabad in UP is in the habit of filing frivolous litigations and making all kinds of averments in his petitions which needs to be viewed seriously and dealt with sternly. Therefore, I think it is a fit case for imposing exemplary costs, but learned counsel for respondents, states that the financial condition of petitioner is so much bad that he may not pay the costs and ultimately land in jail in default of depositing the amount. In the premises discussed hereinabove, the review petition is dismissed with a note of caution to the petitioner for future.