Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; un-argued points cannot be revisited in a review petition.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. This Review Petition is filed on 12.02.2024 for seeking recall of judgment dated 19.01.2024 passed by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2023. By virtue of the said judgment, Writ Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner. At the outset, Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for Review Petitioner would orally inform across the bar that the cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by Petitioner as directed, since an objection is raised by Mr. Khandeparkar that it was not paid. I do not have any reason to disbelieve Mr. Joshi’s statement. Hence, Review Petition is taken up for hearing.

2. Perusal of Review Petition reveals that review is sought on the basis that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the proceedings. Though, Mr. Joshi would argue that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the detailed judgment dated 09.01.2024 but he would candidly clarify that the alleged error apparent on the face of record is not in the judgment dated 09.01.2024 but it is reflected in Respondent No. 4 - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee’s (for short “AGRC”) order dated 29.09.2022 which was impugned before this Court in the Writ Petition. According to him, the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by AGRC suffered from the vice of it having been passed coram-non-judice. To put it simply it is contended that the order dated 29.09.2022 was signed by 2 out of the 5 members of AGRC and was therefore in violation of Rule 5(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Grievance Redressal Committee Rules (for short “the said Rules”).

3. However, in his usual fairness Mr. Joshi would admit before the Court that though the aforesaid ground was reflected in the Writ Petition (being ground ‘w’) it was not pressed or argued before the Court by Petitioner. As usual, it has been always observed that in Review Petition the original arguing Counsel/Advocate who appears in the Writ Petition never appears. A new set of Counsel/Advocate is briefed to appear in the Review Petition. Such is also the case here. However, argument that ground though taken in the Review Petition was never pressed, agitated or argued by the Petitioner is a crucial addition. Be that as it may, such a ground that the AGRC order is coram-non-judice cannot be taken by the Review Petitioner at this stage in this case due to the following 3 broad reasons:

(i) It was always open to the Review Petitioner on receiving the AGRC’s order dated 29.09.2022 to have immediately approached the AGRC itself on the aforementioned ground, which the Petitioner did not do. In ground ‘c’ of the Review Petition it is stated that in the hearing before AGRC, two members were absent and another member recused himself from the Committee and the Committee comprised of two members as stated therein. If that be so, then it was always open for Petitioner in the first instance to have brought the above discrepancy to the notice of AGRC that it was coram-non-judice, which the Petitioner did not do.

(ii) After the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 was passed by AGRC, Petitioner did not approach this Court on the aforementioned ground, but accepted the order and maintained the challenge to the order on merits in Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2023 filed by Petitioner. Today, the Petitioner claims that the aforesaid ground was agitated and taken by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition. Ground ‘w’ on internal page No. 33 of Writ Petition is the ground to which my attention is drawn by Mr. Joshi. The said ground as appearing therein is cursory in nature and it is not at all specific. Above all, admittedly the Petitioner did not press the said ground at the time of arguing the Writ Petition on merits. Here, it needs to be emphasized and stressed that Petitioner has taken 26 grounds in the Writ Petition which was filed but did not press all 26 grounds. I am only concerned with ground ‘w’ in this Review Petiti