.Point of Law: Territorial jurisdiction - Review of Judgment - A review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

REVIEW PET. 94/2021 & CM APPL. 19781/2021 (for consideration)

1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 04.06.2021 by which W.P.(C) No. 6007 of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also filed CM. APPL.19781/2021 with the title “application for considering this writ along with amendment application and to provide opportunity to defent my case”.

2. By the judgment under review, this Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for the same relief.

3. The review petition runs into 72 pages, and contains paragraph-wise contentions with regard to the contents of the judgment under review. I have requested Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the father of the petitioner, who argued the writ petition in person and has also argued the review petition in person, to crystallise his submissions within the parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Court. The arguments raised by him in support of the petition are dealt with in the following paragraphs of this order.

4. The first argument of Mr. Singh is that the question of territorial jurisdiction, although noted in the first order of this Court dated 27.05.2019, was not reiterated in the further orders starting with the order dated 27.08.2019. According to Mr. Singh, the Court passed further orders upon its satisfaction on the point of territorial jurisdiction, and the issue was no longer open.

5. I find Mr. Singh’s submission in this regard wholly misconceived. The order dated 27.05.2019 notes the issue of territorial jurisdiction and specifically records that all issues, including the issue of territorial jurisdiction, remain open. None of the subsequent orders decide this issue in favour of the petitioner. In fact, Mr. Singh is unable to point out any such order and submits that the decision on territorial jurisdiction is “implicit” in the subsequent orders of the Court. To the contrary, in the order dated 26.11.2020, it is specifically noted that the petition would be heard inter alia on the question of maintainability with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Singh’s ground of review on this account is therefore rejected.

6. Mr. Singh’s next submission is that the judgment under review is in error in holding that the ground upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, is that the head office of the Central Board of Secondary Education [“CBSE”] is situated in New Delhi. According to Mr. Singh, the cause of action also arose in New Delhi. In support of this contention, he submits that the byelaws, regulations etc., framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi.

7. The submission to this effect is also untenable. The framing of byelaws, regulations etc., at the head office of the CBSE does not confer a right upon the parties in any part of the country to approach this Court for the ventilation of its grievances. As noted in the judgment under review, the petitioner is a resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and the school is also located there. The judgment therefore proceeds on the ground that a different court is a more appropriate court for agitation of those grievances, and the point raised by Mr. Singh is not dispositive of that finding.

8. Mr. Singh further submits that the Court has failed to take into account the documents on record which demonstrate that the CBSE was to take action against the School in its office at New Delhi, notwithstanding that the school in question is admittedly situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In support of this contention, Mr. Singh referred to a “Grievance Status” communicated to him by the CBSE dated 13.11.2017 [Annexed to the writ petition at page 104]. In the said document, the grievance raised by M