Judgment reviewed and set aside holding it to be based on misconception of facts

Bombay High Court: A review petition filed by the Union of India and the Chief Postmaster General was allowed by a Division Bench comprising of R.M. Borde and A.M. Dhavale, J.

The review was sought of the judgment passed earlier by the same Court, wherein the candidates whose selection to the posts of Postman or Multi-tasking staff was cancelled on grounds of irregularities in the selection process, were ordered to be given posting. The instant petitioners (original respondents) had alleged large-scale irregularities in the selection process and therefore the selection of the respondents (original petitioners) was cancelled. The respondents (original petitioners) filed a writ petition in the Court against cancellation of their selection. The Court allowed the petition and order as mentioned above. The instant petitioners (original respondents) preferred the review of the said judgment.

The High Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and held that the original respondents were inadvertent in bringing out proper facts to the light of the Court. The alleged incidents of mass scale irregularities were not clearly placed before the Court. The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in BCCI v.  Netaji Cricket Club, 2005 (4) SCC 741, wherein it was held, “An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefore. What would constitute ‘sufficient reason’ would depend on facts and circumstances of the case. The words sufficient reason in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate.” The Court held that in this case too, the earlier judgment was passed on a misconception of facts as proper facts were not brought to light.  The Court held that it was a fit case where its review jurisdiction required to be exercised. Accordingly, the judgment under review was set aside. The original writ petitions were restored to the file for further consideration. [Union of India v. Prakash, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 927, dated 04.05.2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *