BK TIWARI ELECTRICAL PVT LTD MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI KEDEDIN BHAGWATI PRASAD TIWARI Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU), REGISTRAR NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU), EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) AND VICE CHANCELLOR NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY (NEHU)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is directed against my order dated 3-7-2009 passed in WP(C) No. 111(SH) of 2008 allowing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a civil suit to recover the alleged outstanding liability from the respondent authorities. Contending that the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition had been made by its counsel without its knowledge or instruction, the petitioner moved the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4623/2010 for quashing my order. The Apex Court by the order dated 22-2-2010 allowed the petitioner to withdraw the special leave with a liberty to move this Court to seek appropriate modification of the said order. This is how this review petition has come up before this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Seen the review petition as well as the affidavit filed by Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner who withdrew the writ petition upon which the impugned order had been passed by me. The only question which falls for consideration is whether there is mistake apparent on the face of the impugned order. Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, the learned Counsel, in his affidavit seeks to blame this Court for wrong recording of the submissions of Mr. P. Barthakur, who is his senior, in the following manner at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit:

(3.) The content of the affidavit reproduced above does not reflect the correct factual position. In the first place, no affidavit is filed by Mr. P. Barthakur, the learned senior counsel, who was the counsel who made the statement which prompted me to pass the impugned order. The withdrawal with the liberty to file a civil suit was allowed by me exactly in accordance with the statement made by the learned senior counsel on that day. If mistake of the nature projected by the petitioner was made, what prevented it from approaching this Court. immediately on receipt of the copy of the impugned order instead of approaching the Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case, a copy of the impugned order dated 3-7-2009 was obtained by the petitioner 6-7-2009 i.e., about three days after the order was passed. This can be seen from the copy of the certified copy of the impugned order. If there had been an error as claimed by the petitioner, what had prevented it from bringing such an error immediately to the notice of this Court, is not explained, much less, satisfactorily explained, by it. Instead, the special leave petition was also apparently preferred by it in 2010 i.e.after about 7 months. This conduct on the part of the petitioner is quite strange. This reminds me of the observations of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, 1982 2 SCC 463, which are found at paragraph 4 of the judgment: