Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 319 (MP)

Omwati Singh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

2018-03-16

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
ORDER : The applicant has filed this review petition for recalling the order dated 11.05.2017 passed in W.P. No. 13193/2016. 2. The applicant has filed a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 13193/2016 challenging the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by Estate Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was affirmed vide order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal in an appeal preferred under Section 9 of the Act. The respondents have filed an application under Sections 5 & 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer for eviction of shop which was in applicant's occupation on the ground that the applicant has violated the terms and conditions of licence granted to her. The licence was not renewed after 31.03.2011 and the applicant has been running office instead of general store for which, she was granted the licence. The Estate Officer vide order dated 05.01.2016 has declared the applicant as unauthorized occupant and directed her eviction from the shop in question. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Bhopal, who affirmed the same vide order dated 26.07.2016. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 13193/2016. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2017. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed this review petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has filed this review petition on the ground that while dismissing the writ petition, this Court has not taken into consideration the letter dated 15.12.2016, by which the applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,785/- within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice to enable them to renew/regularize the licence issued in favour of the applicant. It has further been submitted that such a notice was annexed as Annexure-P/8 with rejoinder to the writ petition. Pursuant to such notice, the applicant deposited the amount on 29.12.2016 and the receipt acknowledging the same was filed with the writ petition as Annexure-P/9. The said fact was not denied or rebutted by the respondents. It has further been submitted that such a notice was annexed as Annexure-P/8 with rejoinder to the writ petition. Pursuant to such notice, the applicant deposited the amount on 29.12.2016 and the receipt acknowledging the same was filed with the writ petition as Annexure-P/9. The said fact was not denied or rebutted by the respondents. It has further been submitted that since, the aforesaid notice has been issued during the pendency of the writ petition, therefore, the non-applicants by their conduct are estopped from evicting the applicant's on the ground that she has violated the terms and conditions of the licence. This fact was lost sight by the Court while dismissing the writ petition. In such circumstances, he submits that the order passed by this Court on 11.05.2017 may be recalled and the writ petition may be restored to its original number. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the review petition may be dismissed. He further submits that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, review is not maintainable. He further submits that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. He further submits that while deciding the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has only to see whether the subordinate Court has acted within their jurisdiction. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by this Court. The applicant has filed this review petition mainly on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, this Court has not taken into consideration the documents which is filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder. 6. Admittedly, the notice dated 15.12.2016 issued by the respondents after passing of the order by the appellate authority and while deciding the appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to see whether the subordinate authority has acted within their jurisdiction and any subsequent event which has occurred after passing of the order by the appellate authority cannot be looked into while deciding the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error committed by this Court in deciding the said writ petition. This Court cannot sit as an appellate Court while deciding the review petition as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. Bal Niketan Nyas, Bhopal and others, reported in 2015(3) MPLJ, 83. In the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court in para-8 has held as under:- “8. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The court while deciding the application for review cannot sit in appeal over the judgment or decree passed by it. [See : S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 , State of W.B. and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 and Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 ] Even otherwise, the impugned order neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in review jurisdiction. From perusal of the application, we find no ground for recall of the order dated 6/4/2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 4638/2015, is made out. 7. As per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (2014) 5 SCC, 75 that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for review. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid as there is no error apparent on the face of the record, I do not find any reason to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, this review petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.