(1.) This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-7- 2004 passed by this Court in W. P. (C) No. 407 of 2001 and is filed under the following facts and circumstances :-
(2.) The petitioner filed the writ petition for directing the respondents to pay compensation for the killing of his son, Krishna Mangal Jamatia on 23-3-2001 at Kafrubari, Sough Tripura by unwarranted police firing. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not take the responsibility of the killing on the ground that the deceased was simply the victim of cross firing between them and the extremists, for which the perpetrators were not known and that the deceased himself was a collaborator of the extremists. To cut short the narration, in the wake of denial of the allegations of the petitioner by the respondents, this Court was of the view that such disputed question of facts could not be decided without taking evidence and that the matter called for enquiry by a judicial officer. Accordingly, this Court by the order dated 16-12-2003 directed the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur to conduct an enquiry into the cause of death of the deceased and submit his report within a period of four months.
(3.) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the learned District Judge made the enquiry and after examining the witnesses produced on behalf of both the parties, submitted his report in sealed cover before this Court within the extended period of time. On 16-7-2004, the case was listed before this Court for order. On that day, Mr. Sajib Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present. The Government respondents were represented by Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel and both the counsel appearing for the rival parties stated before the Court that they have accepted the findings contained in the enquiry report. In the light of the statements made by the counsel, this Court dispensed with hearing of the counsel and reserved the case for judgment, which was delivered on 30-7-2004 by dismissing the writ petition holding that the police personnel were not responsible for the death of the deceased and that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation claimed by him. It is the case of the petitioner that his counsel made the wrong statement before this Court that the petitioner accepted the findings of the learned District Judge when he had not even read the enquiry report or did not even know before hand the contents therein which was admittedly under sealed cover. According to the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Bhowrnik, the learned senior counsel was in Europe on that day and was present only on 30-7-2004 when the judgment was delivered by this Court whereupon he came to learn that the enquiry report was adverse to the petitioner. It is thus contended that but for the wrong statement made by Mr. Sajib Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition could not have been dismissed and that the judgment is liable to be set aside and the case be reheard on merit,