Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane, Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Mishra,Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Jagdish Pathak Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Sri Raman Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. Order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the review application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay, is under challenge in the present petition.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 that since the main order against which the present review application has been filed is not under challenge, the present petition is not maintainable. In response to the same counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment and order passed by this Court on August 19, 2019 in Writ C No. 1914 of 2019 (Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another) reported in (2020) 164 FLR 281. Paragraph 12 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-

"12. What is in issue is whether the Order 7-B is appealable by virtue of Section 7- B(5) of the Act. Here, it would be gainful to refer the provisions of Section 7-B of the Act, that are quoted in extenso:

"7-B. Review of orders passed under Section 7-A.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order

to the officer who passed the order:

Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is

satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground.

(2) Every application for review under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and

manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme.

(3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application.

(4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, he shall grant the same:

Provided that,--

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and (b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation.

(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under Section

7-A."

(Emphasis by Court)

13. A reading of the provisions of Section 7-B of the Act makes it clear that an Application for Review that is rejected, leads to an order from which no appeal lies. If an order rejecting an Application for Review were to be challenged, certainly a writ petition would be competent from that order alone. In that challenge, the Court would be required to see whether the Authority was right in rejecting the Application for Review. In a petition of that kind