Review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated: High Court of Delhi.

13IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 6007 2019 Date of Decision 8th July 2021 RIDDHIMA SINGHTHROUGH HER FATHER SHAILE NDRA KUMAR SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh in CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS. Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Dolo Adv. for R 1 Ms. Aishwarya Rao Mr. Sumit Jain Ms. Venika Nim Advs. for R 3 School. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN JUDGMENT PRATEEK JALAN J.The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing. REVIEW PET. 94 2021 & CM APPL. 19781 2021 By way of this review petition the petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 04.06.2021 by which W.P.(C) No. 60019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also filed CM. APPL. 19781 2021 with the title “application for considering this writ along with amendment application and to W.P.(C) 6007 2019 provide opportunity to defent my case”. By the judgment under review this Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds of forum non conveniens and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for the same relief. The review petition runs into 72 pages and contains paragraph wise contentions with regard to the contents of the judgment under review. I have requested Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh the father of the petitioner who argued the writ petition in person and has also argued the review petition in person to crystallise his submissions within the parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Court. The arguments raised by him in support of the petition are dealt with in the following paragraphs of this order. The first argument of Mr. Singh is that the question of territorial jurisdiction although noted in the first order of this Court dated 27.05.2019 was not reiterated in the further orders starting with the order dated 27.08.2019. According to Mr. Singh the Court passed further orders upon its satisfaction on the point of territorial jurisdiction and the issue was no longer open. find Mr. Singh’s submission regard wholly misconceived. The order dated 27.05.2019 notes the issue of territorial jurisdiction and specifically records that all issues including the issue of territorial jurisdiction remain open. None of the subsequent orders decide this issue in favour of the petitioner. In fact Mr. Singh is unable to point out any such order and submits that the decision on territorial jurisdiction is “implicit” in the subsequent orders of the W.P.(C) 6007 2019 Court. To the contrary in the order dated 26.11.2020 it is specifically noted that the petition would be heard inter alia on the question of maintainability with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Singh’s ground of review on this account is therefore rejected. 6. Mr. Singh’s next submission is that the judgment under review is in error in holding that the ground upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked is that the head office of the Central Board of Secondary Education is situated in New Delhi. According to Mr. Singh the cause of action also arose in New Delhi. In support of this contention he submits that the byelaws regulations etc. framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi. The submission to this effect is also untenable. The framing of byelaws regulations etc. at the head office of the CBSE does not confer a right upon the parties in any part of the country to approach this Court for the ventilation of its grievances. As noted in the judgment under review the petitioner is a resident of Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh and the school is also located there. The judgment therefore proceeds on the ground that a different court is a more appropriate court for agitation of those grievances and the point raised by Mr. Singh is not dispositive of that finding. 8. Mr. Singh further submits that the Court has failed to take into account the documents on record which demonstrate that the CBSE was to take action against the School in its office at New Delhi notwithstanding that the school in question is admittedly situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In support of this contention Mr. Singh referred to a “Grievance Status” communicated to him by the CBSE W.P.(C) 6007 2019 dated 13.11.2017 categorically stating that it does not possess any regulatory power in the matter of fee hike and therefore the State Government would be required to take appropriate action in the matter. This point therefore does not disclose any error on the face of the judgment under review. 9. Mr. Singh also refers to a communication dated 21.12.2017 addressed by the Block Education Officer Ghaziabad to the District Basic Education Officer wherein it is inter alia stated that full control over the institutions rests with the CBSE Board Delhi and the Joint Education Director Meerut Mandal Meerut. According to Mr. Singh this document clearly establishes that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the CBSE in Delhi. I do not find any warrant for such a conclusion. The fact that the CBSE Board is located in Delhi and according to the State Government would have to take action in the matter does not imply that this Court alone has jurisdiction over the grievances sought to be ventilated by the petitioner. 10. Mr. Singh next argues that the cause of action for the present writ petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court due to acts committed by the respondent School during the pendency of the writ petition. He submits that the School has taken various actions against W.P.(C) 6007 2019 the petitioner during the pendency of the petition. Quite apart from the fact that subsequent events would not serve to locate the cause of action for the petition within the jurisdiction of this Court it is patent that those grievances are also against the School and can appropriately be agitated in the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the School. 11. Mr. Singh next submits that the observation in paragraph 1 of the judgment under review to the effect that at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was studying in Class VII in the respondent School is incorrect. According to him the petitioner was not being permitted to attend classes in the School and was in fact studying at home in Class VIII at the relevant time. Ms. Aishwarya Rao learned counsel for respondent no. 3 School however submits that the petitioner has throughout remained on the rolls of the respondent no. 3 School a fact which Mr. Singh is not in a position to dispute. His submission is that even during this period the School did not communicate to the parents of the petitioner that she was not attending the school. There is therefore no cause to review the judgment on this ground either. 12. Mr. Singh also submits that the observations in the judgment under review with regard to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.10.2020 in LPA 297 2020 are erroneous inasmuch as the petitioner was unable to take the examinations in question due to the doctrine of impossibility. The order of the Division Bench dated 12.10.2020 speaks for itself in this regard and Mr. Singh’s submission on this account does not call for review of the judgment dated 04.06.2021. W.P.(C) 6007 2019 13. Further it is pointed out by Mr. Singh that he had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.10.2020 in LPA 297 2020 and the judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.03.2021 in LPA 318 2020 before the Supreme Court. LPA 318 2020 was directed against the direction contained in paragraph 3 of the order of this Court dated 10.02.2020 in SLP(C) No. 7512 7513 2021 the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPs. The order of the Supreme Court therefore also does not call for review of the judgment dated 04.06.2021. Mr. Singh submits that he intends to seek review of the order of the Supreme Court but that also is not a ground to entertain the present writ petition. 14. The arguments raised by Mr. Singh display an attempt to reagitate issues which had already been decided in the judgment under review. Such a course cannot be permitted. A review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated. Quite oblivious to the limitations of the review jurisdiction Mr. Singh has also sought to argue the merits of the grievances brought out in the writ petition which this Court has declined to enter into. The petitioner is not remediless as far as the merits of the dispute are concerned as she has been expressly granted liberty to agitate her grievances before the appropriate court if she is so advised. W.P.(C) 6007 2019 15. For the reasons aforesaid I do not find any ground to exercise the review jurisdiction of the Court. The filing of the review petition is utterly misconceived and the arguments meritless. 16. The review petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 30 000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Account No.: 15530110008386 IFS Code: UCBA0001553 Branch UCO Bank Delhi High Court] within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. JULY 8 2021 ‘j’ PRATEEK JALAN J W.P.(C) 6007 2019 

Summary: Where an issue has already been decided in a judgement and later a review petition is filed to review such Judgement, then a person cannot treat the review petition as a second opportunity to argue the matters which already had been adjudicated earlier. A single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Prateek Jalan, in the matter of Riddhima Singh (Minor) through her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. (W.P.(C) 6007/2019), dealt with an issue where the petitioner is seeking review of the judgement of this court, by a review petition. In the present case, the high court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner stating that it was not maintainable on the ground of forum non conveniens, and thereby stated that the petitioner had the liberty to approach the appropriate court for the relief. Mr. Singh, the father of the petitioner, himself argued both the writ petition and the review petition. This court directed Mr. Singh to crystallise his submissions within the parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Singh’s first argument was on the question of territorial Jurisdiction, to which he stated that this question was also dealt with in the first order of this court and further this question has not been reiterated in any further orders. Hence, he submitted that the court passed the further orders, on being satisfied with the question of territorial jurisdiction, and so the issue was no longer open. The court however had a view that Mr. Singh’s submission regarding territorial Jurisdiction was wholly misconceived. The court contended that the first order stated that all issues including the question on territorial jurisdiction remain open, as well as nowhere this issue was decided in favour of Mr. Singh. The court also pointed out that on an order dated 26/11/2020, it specifically stated that the petition would be heard inter alia on the question of maintainability with regard to territorial jurisdiction.  Thereby the court rejected this ground for review stated by Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh submitted that it was wrongly held in the Judgement, questioning the ground upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, as because according to him, cause of action arose in New Delhi, supporting which he submitted that the byelaws, regulations etc., framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi. On this, the court contended that- “The framing of byelaws, regulations etc., at the head office of the CBSE does not confer a right upon the parties in any part of the country to approach this Court for the ventilation of its grievances”. Further, the court pointed out as the petitioner was a resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the school was also located there, hence a different court would have been appropriate for those grievances. Mr. Singh further Submitted that the observations in the judgment under review with regard to the order of the Division Bench of this Court was erroneous so much so that the petitioner was unable to take the examinations in question due to the doctrine of impossibility. The court here stated that in this regard the order of the divisional bench spoke for itself and hence stated that Mr Singh’s submission on this does not call for a review of the Judgement. Mr. Singh had also challenged the judgement of the division bench and had approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP, but The Apex Court had dismissed the SLPs. Mr Singh Had also submitted that he intends to seek review of the Order of the Supreme Court. To which the court contended that such was neither a ground to entertain the present writ petition nor does it call for a review of the judgement that was given by this court. The court observed that the arguments given by Mr. Singh showed an attempt to reagitate issues which earlier had been decided in the Judgement. Further, the court observed that Mr. Singh argued the merits of the grievances brought out in the writ petition, which the court had declined to enter into. The court also stated that- “The petitioner is not remediless as far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, as she has been expressly granted liberty to agitate her grievances before the appropriate court if she is so advised”. The court was also of the view that the filing of the review petition was utterly misconceived, and the arguments by Mr. Singh were meritless, hence the court dismissed the review petition with costs of Rs. 30,000/-, which the court directed to deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks.