The Court condensed the delay in filing a review petition. It dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit, finding no material error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the impugned Division Bench judgment.
Review petition dismissed; delayed registration condoned.
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
CMP(M) No.180/2017 in Review Petition No.35/2017
Date of decision : 01.06.2017 Solan District Truck Operators Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Harjinder Singh and others …Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Kush Sharma, Dy. A.G. for State. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for R-1.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CMP(M) No.180/2017
For the reasons set out in the application,
delay of 95 days in filing the petition, which in our
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2…
considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of.
Review Petition No.35/2017
We do not find any reason to interfere with
the well considered judgment rendered by a Division Bench. In our considered view, there is neither any mistake nor error apparent on the face of record or sufficient reason so as to take in its sweep, a ground analogous to those specified in the statutory provisions. There is no material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermining its soundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling the party to be reheard, simply because the party wants a decision to be otherwise.
…3…
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
(Sandeep Sharma), June 1, 2017 (K S) Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the review petition is condonable.
Whether there is any material error manifest on the face of the order to warrant grant of review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati and othersReferred¶20
Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
Solan District Truck Operators Transport Cooperative Society Ltd.
Sh. Harjinder Singh and others
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
