This is a review application challenging an order quashing a lease-granting directive in a writ petition involving an Ayurvedic medicine shop. The court observed the petitioner was an improper party to the original writ and dismissed 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.
05.09.2017RVWPET No.231 of 2014
Though this matter was listed for orders, on consent of the parties, the same is taken up for
final disposal.
This is an application for review of the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by this
Court. By the said order, this Court quashed the letter dated 03.04.2013 issued by the Under
Secretary to Government in the Department of Health & Family Welfare vide Annexure-4 of the w
rit application and directed the opposite parties to grant lease in favour of the writ petitio
ner for opening of 24 hours Ayurvedic Medicine Shop in the premises of Gopabandhu Ayurveda Mah
avidyalaya, Puri within a period of three months.
Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the a
dvertisement, the petitioner had applied for Ayurvedic Medicine Shop. He was the most suitabl
e candidate. But his name was not recommended. There was no provision for recommending the se
lection to the Government. The petitioner was all through when an impression that the letter o
f allotment be issued in his favour. At this juncture, this Court directed the Government to
grant lease in favour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner was not a party to the writ appli
cation. He is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court. Thus the order be recalled.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is difficult to fatho
m.
On a cursory perusal of the statement vide Annexure-C to the review applicatio
n, it is evident that pursuant to the advertisement, the Committee was constituted consisting
of three doctors for scrutiny of applications on
30th September, 2011. Thereafter the name of the writ petitioner was recommended to Government
. The Under Secretary to Government in the Department of Health & Family Welfare by letter da
ted 03.04.2013 directed the Director of AYUSH, Odisha, Bhubaneswar with a request to look into
the matter as per the revised guideline of the Government. This Court quashed the same. Adm
ittedly the name of the petitioner was not recommended. The petitioner was neither necessary
nor proper party to the writ application.
The review petition is dismissed.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed by an ex-parte beneficiary against a quashment order in a writ petition should be allowed.
Whether a party not considered was necessary in the earlier writ application justifying a review.
Writ Petitioner
Under Secretary to Government
A. K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court