Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 334 (MP)

Devendra Giri v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-03-09

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. Heard. 2. By this review petition, the petitioner is seeking the review of the order dated 15.02.2021 whereby the W.P. No. 24084/19 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (4) MPHT 18 in the case of Bank of Maharashtra vs. Manoj Kumar and 2018 (4) MPLJ 657 in the case of State of M.R. vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, the policy prevailing on the date of consideration of the application is to be made applicable and this Court has relied upon the obiter in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Shrivas vs. State of M.R. & Others, which has no binding value. 4. Opposing the prayer learned counsel for the State has submitted in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of (2007) 5 SCC 428 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal & Others and in the case of Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs. Hazara Singh reported in (1975) 1 SCC 794 even the obiter of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court. 5. Having regard to the judgment in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) this Court has taken the view that the case for compassionate appointment is to be decided in terms of the applicable policy existing as on the date of demise unless subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. This Court has also relied upon the interpretation to the policy/circular dated 18.08.2008, 29.09.2014, 31.08.2016 and 21.03.2017, which has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Shrivas (supra). 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Committee (supra) has held that the judicial propriety, dignity and decorum demand that being the highest judicial tribunal in the country even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding. Declaration of law by that Court even if it be only by the way has to be respected, but all that does not mean that every statement contained in a judgment of that Court would be attracted by Article 141. 7. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Declaration of law by that Court even if it be only by the way has to be respected, but all that does not mean that every statement contained in a judgment of that Court would be attracted by Article 141. 7. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the obiter dicta of Supreme Court may be binding on the High Court in the absence of direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere by the Supreme Court but such obiter only has persuasive authority for the Supreme Court. 8. Having regard to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Municipal Committee (supra), this Court has not committed any patent illegality in relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra). 9. The judgment in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal & others vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 1 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner because in the present case the policy/circulars on which the petitioner was placing reliance upon have been duly considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra), which has been referred and relied upon by this Court. 10. The scope of interference in the review petition is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajender Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others reported in 2007 (15) SCC 513 considering the limited scope of review jurisdiction has held as under:- "5 On a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of re-appreciating the evidence and on such re-appreciation of evidence re-determined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier 6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed." 11. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715 while holding that the error should be self evident not requiring process of reasoning has observed as under:- "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 12. The Supreme court in the matter of Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 considering the limited scope of review has held that scope of review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record. The error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of the record without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning. It is also settled position in law that review power may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as that would be a province of a Court of appeal and the review power should not be confused with the appellate power. 13. Having examined the matter, I am of the opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioner do not fall within the limited scope of exercise of review jurisdiction and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, no case for review is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.