A review application challenging the dismissal of a writ petition upheld a Tribunal decision. The court found all grounds merely re-argued merits without showing error apparent on the face of the record and rejected the review.
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.
2024:BHC-AUG:29341-DB
271.24ra
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 271 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12486 OF 2024
Pandurang Uttam Rathod
VERSUS
3. Ramesh Mansing Ade
Mr Mahesh K. Bhosale, Advocate for applicant Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th December, 2024
PER COURT (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.) :-
271.24ra
(2)
this review application, the applicant/petitioner has sought for review of the judgment on several grounds stated in the review application.
271.24ra
(3)
specific grounds demonstrating ‘discovery of new and important matter or evidence’ or ‘mistake or error apparent on the face of the record’. Further, the mistake or error has to be apparent and it has to be a kind of self evident mistake or error.
reported in 1993 AIR SCW 1488 , which are dealing with the issue regarding the date of eligibility of a candidate, which is subject matter of merits of the writ petition.
271.24ra
(4)
Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another, [(1997) 9 SCC 736] and invited the Court’s attention to the fact that the instant review application is filed by a lawyer, who had not argued the writ petition. He had invited the attention of this Court to an extract from the judgment of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra), which is reproduced below :
“1. ……… Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine, that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocateon-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under:
"The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the 'No Objection Certificate’ would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate’ from the
271.24ra
(5)
erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition."
that the applicant has failed to make out any case for review. The instant application for review, therefore, deserves to be rejected.
costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
1 issue framed by the court
Did the applicant demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dismissing his writ petition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Divya Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶6
AIROnline 2023 SC 940
Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and othersReferred¶6
1993 AIR SCW 1488 · Who else cites this
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and anotherRelied on¶7
(1997) 9 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
Pandurang Uttam Rathod
The State of Maharashtra, thr. District Collector, Nanded
The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded
Ramesh Mansing Ade
Mangesh S. Patil
Prafulla S. Khubalkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
