The Court emphasized the importance of presenting correct facts and arguments during the initial hearing and found that the review and recall applications lacked merit.

V.K. BIST, J.

This review application is pending since long. Application was listed on 21.12.2017, on which day, following order was passed :

“Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3 sought adjournment on the ground that Senior Advocate Mr. U.K. Uniyal is out of station.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner submits that he has no objection for adjournment in case some early date is fixed in the matter.

I have gone through the order sheet. I find that after filing of the review application, the case has been listed many times. The case was adjourned either on the request of the counsel for the petitioner or on the request of counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. On few occasions, the case was adjourned on the joint request of the counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the order sheet, I find that at no point of time, any of the parties opposed the adjournment. Today also the adjournment is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. I repeatedly asked the counsel for the petitioner whether he has any objection to the adjournment being sought by Mr. Vipul Sharma, counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. Mr. P.S. Bisht, counsel for the petitioner replied that he has no objection and stated that the case be listed on 02.01.2018.

Considering the fact that both the parties have agreed for adjournment, adjournment is granted.

In such circumstances, I direct that case be listed on 02.01.2018. In case I am not sitting singly, necessary permission be sought from Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting the Bench.”

2. Again on 02.01.2018 following order was passed :

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the parties sought adjournment and prayed that the case may be listed on 11.01.2018.

List this matter on 11.01.2018 at 03:00 p.m., after obtaining approval from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”

3. Review application has been filed by the petitioner/review applicant for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 31.12.2009. Further prayer is made to recall the judgment and order dated 31.12.2009.

4. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in the following manner :

“10. This Court finds that there is a written contract between the parties i.e. the lease deed, which clearly indicates that prior permission from SIDCUL is necessary before transferring the plot in question, thus there is no deemed permission to transfer the industrial plot. Moreover, even if an entrepreneur gives the transfer fee, prior written consent/ permission is required from the SIDCUL. But said permission was not given to the petitioner. Under the transfer policy dated 27.03.2006 the case of the petitioner does not fall within the zone of consideration for granting permission to transfer the plot, as such, the petitioner has rightly been included in the list of non-transferable lease. The respondent nos.2 & 3 have come up with the case that on 27.03.2007 the SIDCUL issued an order regarding transfer of industrial plots stipulating therein the Clause (ii) that the allottees (except those who have executed lease deed) will be given a chance to surrender the plots to SIDCUL @ 90% of the prevailing price. The main idea behind the welfare State is to increase human resources in the State so that mass of people may dig up advantages. In this very context the State of Uttarakhand is giving relaxation in excise duty and other rebates to the companies in establishing industrial units in the State. It is visualized from the facts that in the area of SIDCUL, there are so many companies, which are interested to establish new industries in the same conditions prevailing at the site. Thus, the action of the respondents cannot be said as arbitrary. Moreover, the petitioner has already executed lease deed in his favour, therefore it is not possible to permit him to transfer the allotted plot and it is not open to the petitioner to transfer the aforesaid lease deed to any other entrepreneurs. Suffice it to observ