O.P. Singh Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:13659-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.27 11:19:44 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

REVP No. 21 of 2025

¶7

1 - O.P. Singh S/o B.B. Singh Aged About 52 Years (Wrongly Mentioned R.C. Thakur), R/o House No. 38/802 Near Kedia House, P.O. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

¶11

2 - South East Central Railway Through The Additional Division Railway Manager, Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004.

¶12

3 - Principle Chief Operations Manager South East Central Railway, New Zonal Building, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495004.

¶13

4 - Senior Divisional Operations Manager South Eastern Central Railway, Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Prem Shankar Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Palash Tiwari,Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

2

Order on Board

21/03/2025

By the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 20/12/2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.2142/2024, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, as being bereft of merits.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during pendency of the writ petition i.e. WPS No.2142/2024, the writ petitioner was acquitted from the Criminal Case No.6853/2017 passed by the Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur and copy of the said judgment has been filed before this Court on 07/08/2024 along with an application for taking document on record. According to the petitioner, while deciding the writ petition, the said fact has not been considered by this Court and as such, the order dated 20/12/2024 may be reviewed.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in respect of acquittal of the petitioner, the petitioner has not brought the said fact by amending the pleadings of the petition and he simply filed an application for taking document on record. He would further submit that in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is only required to test the legality and validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and not beyond that.

¶23

3

¶24

Wehave heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the order under review.

¶25

The scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, we cannot sit in judgment over our own order.

¶26

After acquital of the petitioner by the Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No.6853/2017, the petitioner has only filed an application (I.A.No.1) on dated 8- 8-2024 for taking document on record instead of amending the pleadings of the writ petition. Even the said application has not been allowed by this Court and the petitioner has also not taken any initiative in this regard.

¶27

It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without amending the pleadings, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the pleadings. It is also trite law that though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot,

¶28

4

¶29

ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.

¶30

By the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the CAT and in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can only test the legality and validity of the order passed by the CAT and the fact which has been subsequent to the decision of the CAT cannot be looked into in a writ petition, as the said fact was not before the CAT while adjudicating the grievance of the petitioner.

¶31

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case by the Special Railways Magistrate, Raipur, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority of the railways and make a suitable application with regard to his acquittal. On filing of such application, the railway authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits as early as possible.

¶32

10.With the aforesaid observation, the review petition is disposed of.

¶33

SD/SD/(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶34

Gowri/ Amardeep

O.P. Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.P. Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Sahu Vs Smt. Sandhya Sahu

Smt. Vandana Sen Vs Hemkumar Sen

Rajesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Kurre Vs Ku. Khushbu Kurre

Badrinath Devangan Vs Smt. Saraswati Devangan

Saturn Ferro Alloys, Situated Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate