1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M. C. A. (REVIEW) NO. 498 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4884 OF 2008(D) (M/s Daga Fuels & Binders Pvt. Ltd. & Ano. Vs. Union of India thr Secretary & Ors. ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Shyam Dewani Adv for petitioner. Shri S. C. Mehadia Adv for respondents 2 & 3. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER, 2011. Dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4884 of 2008 in motion hearing on 17.03.2009 is sought to be reviewed in present matter by contending that material produced on record has not been appreciated while recording the conclusions in para 4 of that order. After hearing Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mehadia learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Mishra learned ASJI for respondent no.1, we find that the fact that said material was pointed out to 2 this Court on 17.03.2009 is not in dispute. Shri Dewani has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1999 Supreme Court , 3407 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ano. Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and another) where the provisions of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 were wrongly appreciated. The counsel had made mistaken statement that reduction to a lower time scale was a minor penalty while Rule 23 described it as a major penalty. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its background has found that High Court ought to have exercised its review jurisdiction. 1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 643 (Gulam Abbas And Others Vs. Mulla Abdul Kadar (dead) through his executors and Others) considered what is error on face of record and the important amendment of the Law of Limitation was totally disregarded by the learned Single Judge. In AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1738, (M/s Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector Golaghat, Assam and Another) Hon’ble Apex Court has in para 15 noted that; 3 “It is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and recall its orders as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders were passed on a wrong or mistaken assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences.” Consideration in para 23 in said judgment shows that High Court disagreed with the valuation of tea bushes made by the District Judge but then it is noted by Apex Court that being Court of First Appeal, High Court could have itself fixed the compensation for tea bushes. It is in this background in para 24 the observation of High Court that there was no material available on record to hold that the land in question falls within a rural area are noted and it was found that said observations were contrary to the Jamabandhi report which classified the land as tea class land. In AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2087 (Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others) in para 14 Hon’ble Apex Court noted that a contention was raised and there has been omission to consider it. Omission 4 to consider that contention is found to be an error apparent. It is also clear from further observations in para 15 and 16 made by the Apex Court. In AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4765 (M/s Nandi Investments and Enterprises Vs. L. M. Saravamangala) in para 13 the contention of the appellant was interest on principal amount was added twice. Hon’ble Apex Court holds that the High Court ought to have answered the same and should not have disposed of the Review Petition merely by observing that Executing Court had passed the order and it could not have gone behind the decree. As already noted earlier order under review has been passed in motion hearing and after hearing the respective counsel. There is no dispute that relevant material was pointed out to Court and this Court has found that impugned communication was issued way back on 02.03.2006, and the High Court was approached for the first time in October 2008 and doctrine of delay and latches, therefore, is held to be attracted. Though impact of various representations made by the petitioner from time 5 to time has not been specifically gone into, it is apparent that this Court was not convinced with that reason. Other reason given is in the alternative and again it is not in dispute that material on record to persuade this Court to take other view was pressed into service. This also shows rejection of contention of petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that this Court has not looked into the contentions advanced . No case for review is, therefore, made out. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE svk