DILIP KUMAR Vs. SAMIM ANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 6 has been served notice but no one appears on his behalf.

(2.) Through the medium of this review application, the petitioner seeks the review of the order dated 25/07/2000 passed by the L.P.A. Bench in L.P.A. No. 217 of 2000 (R) which was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned single Judge delivered on 1-5-2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 1999 (R). From a reading of the order dated 25-7-2000 passed by the L.P.A. Bench, it becomes clear that this order is a non-speaking order. For locating any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we have to look to the order of the learned single Judge passed on 1-5-2000.

(3.) Undoubtedly what was under challenge before the learned single Judge was an order dated 26-9-1998 granting route permits in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (in the writ application) ignoring the objections of the writ petitioner. In the final judgment/order dated 1-5-2000 passed by the learned single Judge, a reference was made to an earlier order dated 10-4-2000 which he actually quoted verbatim therein. Based on the aforesaid order dated 10-4-2000, the learned single Judge in the order dated 1-5-2000 (which was the subject-matter of challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal) took a view that the writ petitioner had suppressed and concealed the material fact about his representation having been disposed of by the Transport Authority and had, instead, stated in the writ Court that without considering and disposing of his representation or taking the same into account, the Transport Authority had granted route permits in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. What was, therefore, made a subject-matter of an issue by the learned single Judge was as to whether the petitioner's objection to the grant of route permits in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was considered or not considered by the Transport Authority. The stand of the petitioner before the writ Court was that it was not considered and without considering the same, route permits in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were granted. The learned single Judge, however, appeared to be of the view that the petitioner's objection was in fact considered by the Transport Authority and only after such consideration, route permits were issued/granted. For this the learned single Judge appears to have relied upon the order passed by the Transport Authority on 26-2-2000. He, therefore, was of the view that the writ petitioner had made a false statement, concealed this material fact and, therefore, was guilty. The following observations made by him in the course of the judgment dated 1-5-2000 are apposite