IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 64 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 15 of 2005 (S/B) Karuna Nidhi Bharti and another ….……Review Applicants Versus Union of India and others ………. Respondents Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the review applicant. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel (Union of India) for respondent No. 1. Ms. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel (Govt. of U.P.) for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Date of Judgment: 18.02.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 931 of 2011. Learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose the application for condonation of delay. We have considered the averments made in the application and being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay in preferring the review application, we allow the application. Review Application No. 64 of 2011 The order under review proceeded on the basis that there is no provision for submission of a second option, in as much as learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring the same to our notice. In the present review application, petitioners are relying upon a circular letter dated 10th May, 2001 issued by the Member Secretary, State Advisory Committee to Chief Secretary/Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh and other Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the proposition that it was permissible to submit a second option. 2. We have perused the said circular letter and are of the view that the letter makes it absolutely clear that a second option is not permissible. It specifically mentions that if a second option is given, the same shall be rejected at the threshold. With that, however, it has been indicated that if in the second option something very grave and important is indicated, the 2 same may be forwarded to the State Advisory Committee for their decision. In such view of the matter, it does not appear to us that there is any error apparent on the face of the order of this Court dated 26th August, 2010 pertaining to second option. 3. While passing the order under review, we notice that subsequent to allocation made on the basis of the second option, Member Secretary, State Advisory Committee revoked the second option and consequentially, the allocation made on the basis thereof. The order under review proceeded on the basis that the Member Secretary was not empowered to do what he did. The same could only be done by the Central Government, since the power to do so vests in the Central Government under Section 73 (2) of the Reorganization Act. 4. In the review application, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, it is being contended that once the Central Government makes an allocation, it ceases to have any power in relation to the option and, accordingly, it is incompetent to re-allocate and as a result, there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order under review, whereby it has been observed that the petitioners may be re-allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. We think that user of the word, “re-allocate” in the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2010 was a typographical error. What the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2010 meant, was to allocate the petitioners. The judgment under review proceeded on the basis that since there is no scope of a second option, steps taken pursuant to the second option were void abinitio. The Central Government, therefore, was obliged to deal with the first option and to conclude the same by allocation. 6. With the correction of the typographical error as above in the order under review, we dispose of the review application. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.02.2011 18.02.2011 Amit