The Managing Director Hp State the Mall Shimla Cooperative Bank Vs Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Managing Director Hp State the Mall Shimla Cooperative Bank Vs Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the words 'amount of Rs.4,86,798/-' in para-3 of the decision in Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 1534/2025) are a typographical error requiring correction to Rs. 4,83,648 — i.e., whether any case for review is made out.

Court's answer

No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out; consequently, no case for review is made out.

Ratio / Principle

CMP No.24368/2025 allowed: delay in re-filing the petition condoned and the application disposed of.

Key takeaways

Delay in filing the review petition condoned (the respondent/non-applicant having no objection) and the application disposed of.ratio¶16
The review petition fails and is dismissed; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), CMP(M) No. 1751/2025, decided 29.10.2025 — Review dismissed; correction of typographical error refused. The Managing Director (HRTC), writ respondent in Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 1534/2025, decided 07.03.2025), sought review asserting that the words 'amount of Rs.4,86,798/-' in para-3 of that decision were a typographical error to be corrected to Rs. 4,83,648 (the figure appearing in paras-1 & 2). Background: recovery of Rs.4,86,798/- was ordered against the writ petitioner under Annexure P-2 dated 15.02.2018 on the basis of order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-1); that order had been quashed and set aside in Gopal Singh Kanwar & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 660/2018, decided 28.03.2023), whereupon CWP No. 1534/2025 was disposed of on 07.03.2025 with a direction to refund Rs.4,86,798/-. Held: no error apparent on the face of the record having been pointed out, no case for review is made out; the review petition fails and is dismissed, and pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of. Delay in filing the review petition, and delay in re-filing (CMP No.24368/2025), were condoned.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMP(M) No. 1751/2025 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Managing Director …Petitioner Versus Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar .…Respondents.

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

CMP No.24368/2025

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in re-filing the petition is condoned. Application to stand disposed of.

CMP(M) No. 1751/2025

Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent/non-

applicant (writ petitioner) has no objection for condoning the delay in

filing the review petition. Accordingly, in view of submissions made

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2

and also in the interest of justice, delay in filing the review petition is

condoned. Application to stand disposed of.

Review Petition No. ________/2025

Be Registered.

Heard.

2 . Learned counsel for the review petitioner (writ

respondent) asserts that the words ‘amount of Rs.4,86,798/-’ figuring in para-3 of the Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.² are a typographical error and the same is required to be corrected to Rs. 4,83,648, as mentioned in paras-1 & 2 of the said decision

3 . Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that Annexure P-2 dated 15.02.2018 (with the writ petition) ordering recovery of Rs.4,86,798/- was issued on the basis of order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition); Under order dated 15.02.2018, recovery of an amount of Rs.4,86,798/- was ordered against the petitioner on the basis of order dated 12.12.2017. That in Gopal Singh Kanwar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.³ (Annexure P-4 with the writ petition) the order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) had been quashed and set aside. This fact is otherwise apparent from the perusal of the said decision (Annexure P-4 with the writ petition). That the being the position, recovery of amount of Rs.4,86,798/- ordered by the review petitioner-

2 CWP No. 1534/2025 decided on 07.03.2025

3 CWP No. 660/2018 decided a/w connected matters on 28.03.2023

3

HRTC (writ respondent) under Annexure P-2 dated 15.02.2018 had lost its efficacy. Accordingly, Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar² was disposed of on 07.03.2025 with direction to the review petitioner (writ respondent) to refund the amount of Rs.4,86,798/-.

4 . No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. Consequently, no case for review is made out. The review petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

29^th October, 2025(rohit)