MOHD UMAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thus spoke Krishna Iyer, J. in a separate judgment rendered in the. case of Northern India Caterers (I) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 in his inimitable and consummate style:

(2.) WE have said so in the beginning as the petitioner who has argued the present application for review had sought our indulgence for reappraisal of the factual scenario in entirety as if an application for review is a salubrious incursion into the order that had come into existence. The claim of the petitioner may be quite dexterous and innovative and he may be in a position to propone his contention in an insouciant manner for the Simon pure reason he has entertained a grievance which, to put it euphemistically, a sanguine one, but a significant one, our obligation in law while dealing with an application for review, albeit, inherent because of the Constitutional scheme we are obligated to be guided by the parameters of law and hence, we have to see whether the petitioner has any substratum to show that the first order is manifestly distorted or exposes any mistake apparent on the face of the record or exhibits lack of inherent jurisdiction or any thing that shocks the judicial conscience within the acceptable legal ken.

(3.) IN the instant application the petitioner has put forth that the fixing of the amount has caused grave injustice to him inasmuch as the interest could have been calculated as it related to the realm of pure arithmetic. In course of hearing, the same has been canvassed.