1996 Supreme(MP) 1121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.P. Singh, J.
Food Corporation of India - Applicant
Vs.
Shankarlal Yadav - Non-applicant
M.C.C. No. 591 of 1996 (J)
Decided On : 18-10-1996

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India – Art. 226 – review of the order under – can be sought only on grounds analogous to O. 47 R.1 CPC.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.47 R.1 – review of the order passed in writ petition – can be sought only on grounds analogous to O.47 R.1.

        Short Note

       This is a petition for review of the order dated 17.5.1996 passed in writ petition No. 3951/95 which was dismissed accepting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have been departmentalised.

       2. In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged their orders of transfer dated 24.1.1995 to different Depots of the F.C.I. The writ petition was dismissed after accepting the contention of Shri S.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the writ petition that after introduction of Direct Payment System in the Jabalpur Depot, most of the facilities available to the directly recruited Mazdoors have been extended to the D.P.S. Mazdoors and the petitioners in the writ petition have been departmentalised. The writ petition was decided on 17.5.1996, whereas this petition for review was filed on 13.9.1996 claiming review of the order in so far it relates to departmentalisation of the services of the petitioners in the writ petition is concerned. The observations of this Court in para 8 of the order reads thus:

       Since the petitioners have been departmentalised and facilities available to the directly recruited employees have been extended to the departmentalised Mazdoors, the departmentalised Mazdoors, as per the terms of settlement between the management and workers' Union, cannot be allowed to resist their transfer when there is no sufficient work for them at Jabalpur.

       3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the above observations of this Court is based on the statement of the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition that the petitioner therein were departmentalized and facilities available to the directly recruited employee were extended to the departmentalised Mazdoors and, as a matter of fact, there was no settlement arrived at between the management and the workers' union with regard to departmentalisation of the D.P.S. Mazdoors at Jabalpur Depot. The order therefore needs to be modified in the perspective of its effect. Reliance was placed in the case of Gujarat University v. Sonal P. Shah, AIR 1982 Guj. 58 and State of M.P. v. Jaswant Puri, 1989 JLJ 413 : 1988 MPLJ 712 for contending that the order needs to be modified by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to review its power to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct palpable or grave error, as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in Order 47 are not applicable to the High Court's power of review in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

       4. Shri V.K. Tankha, learned counsel for the respondents, while not disputing this proposition of law, has contended that the inherent powers though ex – fade plenary, are not be treated as unlimited or unabridged, but they are to be invoked on the grounds analogous to the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1. He placed reliance in the case of A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

       It is true there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review can be exercise on the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge, of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made it may be exercised on any analogous ground. But it many not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.

       5. In this review petition, the petitioners have not averred that the order dated 17.4.1996 is erroneous. In Contempt Petition No. 159/96, Shri S.C. Jain, counsel appearing for the petitioners, has made a categorical statement that the order passed in the writ petition was fair and justified and therefore the F.C.I. did not prefer to go in Letters Patent Appeal.

       6. In this view of the matter, there is no case for review is made out. There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/ – .