Back
2011 (2) JLJ 303
Shantanu Kemkar and A.M. Naik, JJ.
Ashok Virang (Dr.)
v.
State of M.P. and others
Review Petition No.230 of 2011
Decided on 30.6.2011.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.47, R.5 -- order of Division Bench -- cannot be reviewed by Single Judge. [Para 17
(3) High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 -- Ch. VII -- R.9(2)(a) -- review against order of Division Bench -- scope of powers of vacation Judge -- may be exercised original and appellate jurisdiction -- review cannot be heard by Single Vacation Judge.
Held: The aforesaid Rules clearly postulate that the Judge sitting alone as Vacation Judge may exercise the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. Exercise of power of review of order passed by the Division Bench is neither within the ambit of original jurisdiction nor of appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. Clause 2(a) clearly prohibits the Judge sitting alone as Vacation Judge from hearing any matter which is required by virtue of law to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. 1988 MPLJ 258 distinguished. [Para 17
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a Vacation Judge sitting alone is not empowered to exercise the power to review an order passed by a Division Bench in writ appeal. Since the writ appeal is to be necessarily heard by Division Bench, order passed by it can by no stretch of imagination be reviewed by the Vacation Judge sitting alone even during vacation of the Court. It is no where contemplated under law. [Para 13
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.47 R.1 – ground for review -- order passed by Division Bench in writ appeal -- one Judge of them appeared as Government Advocate in earlier round of litigation -- it is no ground for review. The main ground in the review petition is that one of us (namely Honble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar) had appeared for the State in earlier round of litigation, as revealed in the order dated 9.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.6787/2009(S).
Held: This fact was not known to the Division Bench because a Government Advocate has to appear in so many cases for the State, and normally is not in a position to recollect all such matters. It was not brought to the notice of this Division Bench during the hearing of Writ Appeal No.306/2011. Moreover, a consent order was passed on the basis of agreed submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to exercise its discretion in favour of either parties. It has been mentioned in the review petition itself that this fact came into notice, after hearing of Writ Appeal No.306/2011. [Para 16
This being so, no valid ground for review within the ambit of Order 47 rule 1 CPC appears to be available to the reviewist, merely on the ground that one of the Constituent Judge of the Division Bench had appeared for the State Government in another connected earlier writ petition, more so, when the reviewist has failed to aver that any kind of favour was made on account of the alleged fact and that prejudice has been caused to him. It is reiterated that the order under review was passed on agreed submissions made by the counsel for the parties and was not based on discretion of the Court. [Para 20
(5) Advocate -- professional duty of -- review against order of Division Bench -- summer vacation n no prayer made for hearing of review before summer Vacation Division Bench -- on mention memo prayer made before Single Vacation Judge – application for withdrawal of review accompanied by affidavit -- this fact not brought to notice of Single Vacation Judge -other important facts/factors also suppressed -- it is professional mischief AIR 1997 SC 1005 followed. [Paras 1, 10 to 14 & 19
(6) Jurisdiction -- exercise of -- summer vacation -- order of Division Bench -- cannot be reviewed by Single Vacation Judge. [Paras 17 & 18
(7) Natural Justice -- order passed in writ appeal by Division Bench -- review against such order before same Division Bench -- one Judge of them appeared as Government Advocate for State in earlier round of litigation – this fact was not brought to notice at hearing of writ appeal -- he himself rescue from the case.
Held: In any case, since it has been made out that one of us namely (Honble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar) had been a counsel in earlier round of litigation giving rise to the present matter who has desired to rescue from the case, as expressed herein, we, in the fact and circumstances, hereby recall the order dated 16.5.2011, passed in Writ Appeal No.306/2011. It is further observed that since the order under review has already been recalled hereinbefore, consequently, the order passed by the Vacation Judge while sitting alone in the present review petition on 13.6.2011 survives no more. [Para 21
¼1½ e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; fu;e] 2008 && v/;k; pkj && fu;e 13¼1½¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½¼2½ && [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk iqufoZyksfdr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-47 fu- 5 && [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk iqufoZyksfdr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; fu;e] 2008 && v/;k; lkr && fu- 9¼2½¼d½ && [kaM U;k;ihB ds vkns‘k ds fo:) iqufoZyksdu && izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k dh ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && ewy rFkk vihyh vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gS && ,dy izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk iqufoZyksdu ugha lquk tk ldrkA
¼iSjk 17½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZDr fu;eksa dh Li"Vr% vfHk/kkj.kk gS fd ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k ds :i esa U;k;ky; esa fufgr ewy rFkk vihyh vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrs gSA [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds iqufoZyksdu dh ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx u rks U;k;ky; esa fufgr ewy vf/kdkfjrk dh ifjf/k esa gSa vkSj u gh vihyh vf/kdkfjrk ds varxZr gSA [kaM 2¼d½ ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k dks izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k ds :i esa ,sls fdlh ekeys dh lquokbZ djus ls Li"Vr% izfrf"k) djrk gS ftldh lquokbZ fof/k ds vf/kdkj ls nks vFkok vf/kd U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh U;k;ihB }kjk visf{kr gSA 1988 ,e ih ,y ts 258 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 17½
mi;ZqDr mica/kksa dks ,d lkFk i<+us ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k vdsys cSBdj [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk fjV vihy esa ikfjr vkns‘k dk iqufoZyksdu djus dh ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, l‘kDr ugha gSA tc fjV vihy dh lquokbZ vfuok;Zr% [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk dh tkrh gS] blds }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k dk U;k;ky; ds vodk‘k ds nkSjku Hkh izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk vdsys cSBdj dYiuk dh fdlh Hkh mM+ku ls iqufoZyksdu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g fof/k ds varxZr dgha Hkh vuq/;kr ugha gSA
¼iSjk 18½
¼4½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 47 fu- 1 && iqufoZyksdu ds vk/kkj && [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk fjV vihy esa ikfjr vkns‘k && muesa ls ,d U;k;k/kh‘k iwoZ dh eqdnesackth esa ljdkjh vf/koDrk ds :i esa mifLFkr gq, && ;g iqufoZyksdu dk vk/kkj ughaA
iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa eq[; vk/kkj ;g gS fd geesa ls ,d ¼uker% U;k;k/kh‘k Jh ‘kkUruq dsedj½ iwoZ dh eqdnesackth esa jkT; ds fy, mifLFkr gq, Fks] tSlk fd fjV ;kfpdk dzekad 6787@2008 ¼,l½ esa ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 9-2-2009 ls izdV gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g rF; [kaM U;k;ihB dh tkudkjh esa ugha Fkk D;ksafd ljdkjh vf/koDrk jkT; ds fy, vusd ekeyksa esa milatkr gksrs gSa] rFkk lkekU;r% ,sls leLr ekeyksa dk Lej.k j[kus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gSA fjV vihy dz- 306@2011 dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku [kaM U;k;ihB dh tkudkjh esa ;g ugha yk;k x;kA blds vfrfjDr] i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk fd, x, lger fuosnu ds vk/kkj ij lgefr ls vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk [kaM U;k;ihB dks fdlh Hkh i{kdkj ds i{k esa vius foosd dk iz;ksx djus dk dksbZ volj ugha FkkA iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa ;g Lo;a mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd ;g rF; fjV vihy dz- 306@2011 dh lquokbZ ds i‘pkr~ tkudkjh esa vk;k gSA
¼iSjk 16½
;g gksus ij Hkh] iqufoZyksdudrkZ dks vkns‘k 47 fu;e 1 dh ifjf/k esa iqufoZyksdu dk dksbZ oS/k vk/kkj miyC/k gksuk izrhr ugha gksrk] dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fd [kaM U;k;ihB ds ,d laxfBr U;k;k/kh‘k ,d vU; lacaf/kr iwoZ fjV ;kfpdk esa jkT; ljdkj ds fy, milatkr gq, Fks] vkSj Hkh] tc iqufoZyksdudrkZ ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHkdfFkr rF; ds dkj.k fdlh izdkj dk i{kikr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ml ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+k gSA ;g nksgjk;k tkrk gS fd iqufoZyksduk/khu vkns‘k i{kdkjksa ds dkmUlsy ds lger fuosnu ij ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk U;k;ky; ds foosd ij vk/kkfjr ugha FkkA
¼iSjk 20½
¼5½ vf/koDrk && o`frd drZO; && [kaM U;k;ihB ds vkns‘k ds fo:) iqufoZyksdu && xzh"e vodk‘k &&xzhEl izkodk‘k [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k lquokbZ gsrq izkFkZuk ugha dh xbZ && ,dy izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k ds le{k mYys[k Kkiu ij izkFkZuk dh xbZ && iqufoZyksdu okil ysus ds fy, ‘kiFki= ds lkFk vkosnu && ;g rF; ,dy izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k dh tkudkjh esa ugha yk;k x;k && vU; egRoiw.kZ rF;@?kVdksa dks Hkh fNik;k x;k && ;g o`frdk fjf"V gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1005 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 1] 10 ls 14 ,oa 19½
¼6½ vf/kdkfjrk && dk iz;ksx && xzh"e vodk‘k && [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k && ,dy izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk iqufoZyksdu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
¼7½ uSlfxZd U;k; && [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk fjV vihy esa ikfjr vkns‘k && ogh [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k ,sls vkns‘k dk iqufoZyksdu && muesa ls ,d U;k;k/kh‘k iwoZ dh eqdnesackth esa jkT; dh vksj ljdkjh vf/koDrk ds :i esa milatkr && ;g rF; fjV vihy dh lquokbZ ds le; tkudkjh esa ugha yk;k x;k && mUgksaus Lo;a vius vki dks ekeys ls vyx fd;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa] pawfd ;g crk;k x;k gS fd geesa ls ,d uker% ¼ekuuh; Jh U;k;k/kh‘k ‘kkUruq dsedj½ iwoZ dh eqdnesackth ftlls ;g ekeyk mRiUu gqvk gS] dkmUlsy jgs Fks ftUgksaus Lo;a ekeys ls vyx gksuk pkgk gS] tSlk fd ;gk¡ O;Dr fd;k x;k gS] ge] rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj] ,rn~}kjk fjV vihy dz- 306@2011 esa ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 16-5-2011 okil cqykrs gSaA ;g vkSj Hkh ns[kk x;k gS fd pwafd iqufoZyksduk/khu vkns‘k blls igys gh iwoZ esa gh okil cqyk;k tk pqdk gS] ifj.kkeLo:i] orZeku iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa izkodk‘k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk vdsys cSBdj ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 13-6-2011 fo|eku ugha jgrkA
¼iSjk 21½
1. Although one of us namely (Hon'ble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar) has decided to rescue from the case, we both are of the definite opinion that the matter is to be brought on the floor because it is an illustrative case of professional mischief, by seeking stay before Judge of this Court sitting alone as Vacation Judge of consent order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, without making a request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Division Bench for hearing of the matter, and also by avoiding available Division Bench on various dates during Court's summer vacation but by making mention without there being applications for vacational hearing and urgent hearing on review petition on merits. No date for listing was specified in the mention memo so that presumably the matter could be got listed before Vacational Single Judge (during nonavailability of vacational Division Bench during Court's summar vacation) who had no jurisdiction to hear the review under the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 read with the provisions contained in Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure. We have been further informed that a contempt petition has also been submitted on 21.6.2011 for compliance of Single Judge's order dated 2.5.2011 read with Vacation Judge's order dated 13.6.2011 before the same Judge (i.e. same Vacation Judge) and notices have been issued in it on 21.6.2011.
2. Undisputedly, there is a chequered history of litigation between the parties which for the purposes of the present matter needs no narration in detail.
3. The facts in short relevant for the purposes of the present matter are that Dr. Ashok Virang, the reviewist submitted Writ Petition No.3926/ 201O(S) with the following main reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the petitioner's case and on examining the same quash the promotion order of respondent No.3 (Annexure P-10) and DPC proceedings of 22.6.2009 (Annexure P-5).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to properly convene the impugned DPC dated 22.6.2009 and consider the petitioner's name for promotion and promote him on being found fit for promotion after excluding from consideration irrelevant and incorrect material"
4. Writ petition despite opposition was allowed on 2.5.2011 by the learned Single Judge with following operative portions:
"It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not held the DPC till date as directed by this Court and on the contrary again promoted a junior on temporary basis depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right of consideration as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, as the DPC has not been held in consonance with the provisions of the M.P. Public Services Promotion Rules, 2002, the proceedings of the DPC and the consequential promotion order dated 19.11.2009 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh DPC keeping in view the provisions of the recruitment Rules as well as the provisions of the M.P. Public Services Promotion Rules, 2002.
The aforesaid exercise of holding DPC be concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid this writ petition stands allowed."
5. Writ Appeal No.306/2011, at the instance of the present respondent No.3 came up before this Division Bench on 16.5.2011, wherein the petitioner appeared as respondent No.3 and was represented by Shri Brian D'Salve, senior counsel with advocate Mrs. Meena Chaphekar.
6. Learned counsel for the parties made agreed submissions for modification of the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the State Government be directed to hold separate DPC and order to direct review DPC has to be passed with further direction that the review DPC shall consider the matter keeping in view rule 7 clause (7) and (8) of the M.P. Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002.
This is clearly reveal
SupremeToday
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
