Review petition dismissed as it was filed after a significant delay. Court held that since the writ was already admitted, preliminary objections regarding alternative remedy were implicitly decided.
Review petition dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the writ petitioner.
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.
(1 of 2)
[WRW-64/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 64/2019
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2021/1999
Bureau of Indian Standard through its Director General, Manak Bhawan, 9, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi Now through Branch Head Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma Aged 59 Years Son Of Late Shri Satish Chandra Sharma, Branch At Jaipur, Manak Bhawan, Prithviraj Road, Jaipur.
----(Respondent No.1)Petitioner
Versus
-----(Writ Petitioner) Respondent
----(Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition)Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhojak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
01/04/2021
The review petitioner by way of this review petition sought review of the judgment dated 3.1.2019.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that his objections regarding alternative remedy being available have not been taken into account while deciding the writ petition.
It is also noticed that this review petition has come before the Court for the first time today and the petitioner had kept this
(2 of 2)
[WRW-64/2019]
review petition in defect for a long time. It is also noticed that this Court’s order dated 03.01.2019 has not been complied with.
Although, the aforesaid facts have been just noticed. On merits, this Court finds that the review petition is wholly misconceived and baseless. The original writ petition filed by the writ petitioners in the year 1999 had already been admitted. Thus, the preliminary objections about alternative remedy shall be deemed to have been decided by the Court where writ is admitted. The writ petition was listed for final hearing before the Court and judgment was reserved on 13.11.2018. At the time of final hearing, it is noticed that the review petitioner had raised objections in his reply but as the writ petition had already been admitted. No verdict was required.
In review petition, the ground taken regarding the issue to be addressed by this Court is apparently with the purpose to delay implementation of the order. Once a writ petition has already admitted, the objections regarding alternative remedy need not be addressed to.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the writ petitioner.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
AARZOO ARORA /63
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the objections regarding alternative remedy need to be addressed in a review petition after the writ petition has already been admitted.
Bureau of Indian Standard through its Director General
Ajay Singh Rawat
Central Vigilance Commission
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
