Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Kamolesh Das, S/o. Pronobesh Shil – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, To Be Represented By The Secy. Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.)
Heard Shri AZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Shri D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department.
2. By the present application, the applicants, who were the writ petitioners in the WP(C)/661/2020 have prayed for review of the order dated 28.02.2025 by which the said writ petition along with certain other writ petitions were dismissed.
3. Before going to the grounds set forth in the application for review, it would be apposite to remind ourselves the parameters and contours in which an application for review may be held to be maintainable.
4. The principles governing review are well settled. In a recent decision dated 18.08.2022 reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, (S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors.) a three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant case laws has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra) which are as follows:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
Review applications must demonstrate new evidence or clear errors to be maintainable; mere reiteration of previous arguments is insufficient.
Review applications are maintainable only under strict circumstances, such as discovery of new facts or obvious errors, with the burden on petitioners to demonstrate actual prejudice caused by change....
The court emphasized the principles governing the exercise of powers of review, including the grounds for maintainability and non-maintainability of review petitions.
The court determined that non-compliance with a prescribed recruitment ratio is not grounds for re-examination when the process was fair and transparent, supporting equitable opportunities for candid....
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors and cannot be used to re-examine merits of a case or revisit arguments already considered.
Point of Law : Practice and Procedure - Review/modification and/or setting aside of order - Orders of transfer and posting - It is well settled that scope of review of an order is very limited and it....
The court held that contractual employees cannot claim regularization or salary payments post-closure of their workplace, emphasizing the nature of their employment and the project's discontinuation.
The power of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
