This division bench dismissed a review petition challenging the dismissal of a writ application and an order holding the petitioner's subsequent writ maintainable. The court held the petitions impermissible as the underlying judgments were final and the order was based on functus officio.
The review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Review Petition No. 32 of 2017
Decided on: 20.07.2017
Lalit Narain Mishra …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajneesh Roshan, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl.A.G. For respondents No.2 to 6: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Rashmi Parmar, Advocate
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):
By medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought appeal/review of the order passed by this Court on 15.11.2016 in CMP No.9077/2016 as also the order and judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CMP No.10020/2016 in CWP No.1449/2015.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
3
“(a) Recall and verify the answer book of First Hourly and Mid Term Examination FSC 516 and First Hourly Examination of FSC 506 handed over to the respondent university vide order dated 15th November 2015 in CMP No.9077/2016 in Writ Petition No.1449 of 2015 to the petitioner in the interest of justice and
4
provide a copy of that with the seal of the court so that truth of the University can be verified in the open Court in the interest of justice.
(b) Verify the said answer book in the open Court with an expert whether it bears handwriting of the petitioner or not in the interest of justice.
(c) Also provide opportunity to the petitioner to study by taking admission in the University and complete his degree within six months.”
5
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
20.07.2017
(rana)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could entertain a review petition challenging an order holding a writ application not maintainable on grounds of functus officio.
Whether an order passed by a Division Bench in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is amenable to appeal before a Division Bench.
Whether the present review petition falls within the statutory parameters of Sections 114 and 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lalit Narain Mishra
State of H.P.
Sanjay Karol
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
