(1.) This Review Petition is filed on 12/2/2024 for seeking recall of judgment dtd. 19/1/2024 passed by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.1320 of 2023. By virtue of the said judgment, Writ Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000.00 to be paid by the Petitioner. At the outset, Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for Review Petitioner would orally inform across the bar that the cost of Rs.50,000.00 has been paid by Petitioner as directed, since an objection is raised by Mr. Khandeparkar that it was not paid. I do not have any reason to disbelieve Mr. Joshi's statement. Hence, Review Petition is taken up for hearing.
(2.) Perusal of Review Petition reveals that review is sought on the basis that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the proceedings. Though, Mr. Joshi would argue that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the detailed judgment dtd. 9/1/2024 but he would candidly clarify that the alleged error apparent on the face of record is not in the judgment dtd. 9/1/2024 but it is reflected in Respondent No.4 - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee's (for short "AGRC") order dtd. 29/9/2022 which was impugned before this Court in the Writ Petition. According to him, the order dtd. 29/7/2022 passed by AGRC suffered from the vice of it having been passed coram-non-judice. To put it simply it is contended that the order dtd. 29/9/2022 was signed by 2 out of the 5 members of AGRC and was therefore in violation of Rule 5(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Grievance Redressal Committee Rules (for short "the said Rules").
(3.) However, in his usual fairness Mr. Joshi would admit before the Court that though the aforesaid ground was reflected in the Writ Petition (being ground 'w'), it was not pressed or argued before the Court by Petitioner. As usual, it has been always observed that in Review Petition the original arguing Counsel / Advocate who appears in the Writ Petition never appears. A new set of Counsel / Advocate is briefed to appear in the Review Petition. Such is also the case here. However, argument that ground though taken in the Review Petition was never pressed, agitated or argued by the Petitioner is a crucial addition. Be that as it may, such a ground that the AGRC order is coram-non-judice cannot be taken by the Review Petitioner at this stage in this case due to the following 3 broad reasons:-
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN