ORISSA INDUSTRIES LIMITEDTHROUGH ITS DIRECTORMR MOHAN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWAL S/O LATE BISHAN DAYAL JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL,ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STHE present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 20433 of 2009.

(2.) MR. S. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that this Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the constitution of Expert Advisory Committee and decisions taken by it in its meetings dated 18th & 19th August, 2009 are contrary to the statutory provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. As per the judgment dated 30.10.2009 in L.P.A. No. 417 of 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. EMCA Construction Company vs. ASI & others, the constitution of the Expert Advisory Committee of the ASI is de hors the Act, 1958 and the same is illegal. Therefore, all decisions of the Expert Advisory Committee are contrary to the statute. Rejection of the application of the petitioner by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 relying upon the decision of the Expert Advisory Committee, the constitution of which is de hors the statutory provision, is not sustainable in law. The petitioner was not aware of the judgment dated 30.10.2009 in LPA No.417 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. EMCA Construction Company vs. ASI & Ors. and therefore, the same could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing of order dated 09.03.2011, which the petitioner discovered afterwards. Opposite party no.1 in fact concealed the fact of passing of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 30.10.2009 in LPA No. 417 of 2009 from this Court.

(3.) IN Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3737, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing review application observing that review, by no means, is an appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if application has been filed for clarification, modification or review of the judgment and order finally passed for the reason that a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the procedure prescribed for hearing a review application. The Court also rejected the argument that review application should be entertained to do justice in the case, observing as under:-