METAL BOX INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel appearing for the parties. By this notice of Motion, the applicant essentially has called upon me to review my order dated 5th April, 2003 passed in Contempt Petition No. 20 of 2003 on the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The moot question, however, that arises for my consideration is, whether this Court, while exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, for that matter, by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has jurisdiction review its own order? To my mind, the answer is plainly in the negative. It is well settled that right to review is a right, which has to be specifically conferred by law made by legislature. Whereas, the Contempt of Courts Act makes no such provision. In that sense, if the proceedings were to be simpliciter under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court would have no review power so as to review its own order passed in the contempt action. My attention has been rightly invited by Mr. Saraf to the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of (State v. Baldev Raj), reported in 1992 Cri. L. J. 1251, where the Court has held that no review or recall is permissible in action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts act, but the limited power is only to correct mistakes as is provided under sections 362 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To my mind, it necessarily follows that, even if this Court had entertained the contempt petition in exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, there would be no power to review its own order, once the petition is finally disposed of. I am supported in this view by the principle underlying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Pallav Seth v. Custodian and others), reported in 2003 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)51 : 2001 (7) S. C. C. 549, as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in Supreme Court (Bar Association v. Union of India and another), reported in 1998 (4) S. C. C. 409. In Pallav Seth's the Apex Court has clearly observed that even if there is no express provision restricting the power of the Superior Court either to invoke Article 129 or Article 215 of the Constitution of India, but such a right will have to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. Indeed, that observation has been made while construing the power of the Superior court with reference to express provision regarding the period of limitation, such as, section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Applying the same analogy to the issue that arises for my consideration as to whether the Court has power to review its own order, I find no hesitation in answering the same against the applicant. Accordingly, in my opinion, the relief as claimed in this application cannot be entertained, for want of review jurisdiction. Hence, this application fails and is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this application will not affect the rights of the applicant to take recourse to any other appropriate remedy, as may be permissible by law. All concerned to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the court Stenographer of this Court. Application dismissed.