This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous review application seeking review of a judgment from 24.01.2024, holding that new material not placed during original arguments cannot be considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16346
Court No. - 18
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 20 of 2024
Applicant :- Daya Pratap Pal Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present review application has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the FAQ- Frequent Asked Questions dated 30.05.2013 issued by the DOPT was wrongly considered in the judgment under review whereas the case of the review applicant is covered by the OfÏce Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the review applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 04.09.2015 passed in W.P. No. 5265 (SS) of 2014 (In Re: Vishal Kumar vs. Union of India) where the controversy has attained finality.
After hearing learned counsel for the review applicant, it is found that the OfÏce Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 was never referred to at the time of argument of the writ petition nor the decision of this Court dated 04.09.2015 passed in W.P. No. 5265 (SS) of 2014 was placed before this Court. All this is a new material which is sought to be relied upon now in the review application.
The writ petition was decided on the basis of submission and material then placed at the time of argument. New material is not to be considered in the writ petition.
In view of the facts, circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to call for any interference in the judgment/order dated 24.01.2024 already passed in the writ petition.
The present review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether new material (Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 and a specific judgment) sufficient for reviewing a final judgment.
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists to justify interference with the impugned judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishal Kumar vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶7
W.P. No. 5265 (SS) of 2014 (In Re: Vishal Kumar vs. Union of India) dated 04.09.2015
Daya Pratap Pal
Union Of India
Manish Kumar
Nitesh Kumar Tewary
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
