A review petition cannot introduce new grounds and must focus on errors apparent in the original judgment; only minor corrections are permissible if they do not affect the ultimate conclusion.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, C.J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 3231/2022 (Delay in filing of Review Petition)

1. Present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the Review Petition.

2. Looking to the reasons set out in the application, in our view, the Appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring the Review Petition.

3. Application is allowed and disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 15/2022 (Review of judgment dated 12.11.2021) & CM APPL. 3230/2022 (Stay)

4. Present Review Petition has been preferred by the Appellant for review of the judgment dated 12.11.2021, passed by this Court in LPA No. 224/2019.

5. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that in diverse parts of the judgment, this Court has noted that recommendation by the Institutional Allotment Committee (hereinafter referred to as `IAC') and approval by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor was made in favour of the Respondent for allotment of land at `Jasola', whereas, the recommendation as well as the approval was for allotment of land at Vasant Kunj and this is an error apparent on the face of the record, which vitiates the entire judgment.

6. Having perused the documents on record, we find merit in the contention that the recommendation by IAC as well as the approval by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor was for allotment of land at Vasant Kunj in favour of the Respondent and not Jasola. To this extent, the judgment needs to be corrected and accordingly, it is held that wherever there is a reference in the judgment to the recommendation by the IAC and approval by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, the word `Jasola' shall be read as `Vasant Kunj'.

7. However, there is no merit in the contention that this observation vitiates the judgment. A perusal of the prayer clauses in the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein before the learned Single Judge reflects that the Respondent had sought a direction to implement the decision for allotment of the institutional plot at Vasant Kunj and the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has directed the Appellant herein to issue Allotment Letter with respect to the plot at Vasant Kunj. It is an undisputed case between the parties that while applying for allotment of land for establishment of the Middle School on 09.09.2002, Respondent Society had, as per the requisite procedure, given three options, which included both Jasola and Vasant Kunj. As per record, the IAC had recommended for allotment at Vasant Kunj and the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor had granted approval to the said recommendation. It is also undisputed that the Office of the Directorate of Education had issued an Essentiality Certificate in favour of the Respondent on 29.01.2004. Therefore, in our view, the correction in the judgment, as above, does not vitiate or even impact the findings and/or the ultimate conclusion arrived at by this Court.

8. It is next contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/ Review Petitioner that this Court has held that the only ground for rejection of the application of the Respondent was the change of mode of allotment on account of a change in Policy, from allotment to auction, which is an error apparent, inasmuch as an additional reason for rejection was communicated through the letter dated 18.05.2012, which was also impugned before the learned Single Judge. The contention is completely misconceived and deserves to be rejected. A bare perusal of the l