Point of Law: Section 114 of CPC deals with scope of review.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner has sought review of the judgment passed by this Court on 15.10.2022 in CWP No. 1610 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 came to be allowed and thereby the creation of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni was quashed, however, the official-respondents were granted liberty to create the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, in accordance with law.

2. The petitioners claimed that even though they are affected parties being the elected representatives of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, yet they were not made parties in the writ petition and, therefore, any decision passed behind their back is bad in law. In addition to that, it is claimed that this Court ought not to have quashed the entire notification constituting the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, merely, on account of non-inclusion of certain khasra numbers (about 29), which were not included in the initial proposal but were included in the official notification dated 27.10.2020.

3. According to the petitioner, as per settled law, whenever any legislation or consequential decision is sought to be interpreted, firstly violation of Constitutional right or statutory right is to be identified. Thereafter, to save the said piece of legislation/decision, secondly, the principle of reading down is applied to give harmonious construction to achieve the purpose of the legislation. Thirdly, the principle of severability is to be applied so that the offending part is removed provided the remaining part achieves the purpose and object of the legislation. In the instant case, even if 29 khasra numbers are added in the final notification which were not part of the proposed notification, at the most the final notification dated 27.10.2020 should have been quashed to the extent of 29 khasra numbers only and remaining about 475 khasra numbers could continue to validly constitute a legal and valid municipality.

4. Lastly, it has been averred that Nagar Panchayat has received grant of Rs. 38,99,760/-for the Financial Year 2020-21, Rs. 1,20,42,773/- in Financial Year 2021-22 and Rs. 1,18,56,212/- as grant in Financial Year 2022-23. Out of this, upto November, 2022, an amount of Rs. 1,18,37,917/- has been spent and the remaining amount is to be spent for different developmental activities in different wards of Nagar Panchayat, Anni. By quashing the notification dated 27.10.2020 constituting Nagar Panchayat, Anni itself, grave injustice would be caused to the inhabitants of the Nagar Panchayat who would be deprived of the benefit of the developmental activities already started in the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat, Anni.

5. Learned Advocate General as also the private respondents have vehemently contested the petition and it is averred that the present petition has been rendered academic in view of the subsequent developments whereby the exercise to constitute the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, has already been initiated. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either filed or on perusal of the record what needs to be considered at this juncture is the fact that High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction definitely has the power to review its order, however, the subject to the limitation, which is otherwise prescribed or envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through LRs & Ors vs. Sinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. (2021) 13 SCC 1, after taking notice of various judicial precedents on the subject of review in a writ jurisdiction has held as under:-

33. In State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457 this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 465-66, para 27)

“27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequen