Judgment :

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein-Kamlesh Verma seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Mayawati vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 106 (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008).

2. Brief Facts:

(a) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387 of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 706, directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry on the basis of the I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/persons concerned in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report. By means of an order dated 21.08.2003 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project.

(b) The CBI-Respondent No. 2 therein submitted a report on 11.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of order dated 18.09.2003 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 696 wherein the CBI was directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into the registration of an FIR being No. 0062003A0018 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act') against several persons including Ms. Mayawati- Respondent No. 1 herein.

(c) On the very same date, i.e., on 05.10.2003, Shri K.N. Tewari, Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACP, Lucknow lodged another FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act only against Ms. Mayawati (petitioner therein) alleging that in pursuance of the orders dated 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003 and 18.09.2003 passed by this Court, the CBI conducted an inquiry with regard to the acquisition of disproportionate movable and immovable assets of Ms. Mayawati and her close relatives on the basis of which, the CBI has lodged the said FIR. Pursuant to the same, the CBI conducted raids, search and seizure operations at all the premises of the petitioner therein and her relatives and seized all the bank accounts.

(d) Aggrieved by the filing of the FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003, Ms. Mayawati-the petitioner therein and Respondent No. 1 herein preferred Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 before this Court. In the said petition, one Shri Kamlesh Verma (the petitioner herein) also moved an application for intervention being I.A. No. 8 of 2010.

(e) This Court, by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the FIR being No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against Ms. Mayawati (the petitioner therein) and the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the same and also allowed the application for intervention.

(f) Aggrieved by the order of quashing of the FIR being No.0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003, Shri Kamlesh Verma-the petitioner herein/the intervenor therein has filed the above review petition.

3) Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 herein and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General for the CBI.

Discussion:

4) The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction?

Review Jurisdiction:

5) Article 137 of