IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION No.121/2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. NANDAKUMARI T.A., W/O T.M.SUNDARAESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.368, KOMAL NILAYA, OFFICERS LAYOUT, DODDAIAHANAPALYA, HALEPALYA TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. CHIEF AREA MANAGER INDIAN CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, IDANE AREA OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, JCW ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
3. THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, IDANE AREA OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, JCW ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
…RESP0NDENTS (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 LEARNED ASG -SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE W.P.NO.43426/2018(GM-RES) AND PERUSE THE SAME AND REVIEW THE ORDER DT:12/03/2019 IN W.P.NOS. 43426/2018(GM-RES) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED IN ORDER DT:12/03/2019 IN WP NO. 43521/2018 (GM-RES) AND ORDER DT:12/03/2019 IN WP NOS. 51605/2018(GM-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
Sri Lohitaswa Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vighneshwar S.Shastri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The review petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this review petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks review of the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.43426/2018.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another petition namely W.P.No.51605/2018 was listed before the Court on the same day and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority with regard to his grievance. However, petitioner’s counsel make such a prayer that he could not be present due to the circumstances beyond his control. It is further submitted that the order dated 12.03.2019 be modified and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to submit the representation with regard to his grievance.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the order does not contain any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court to exercise review jurisdiction.
6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that the inaction on the part of the parties should not make them to suffer since, the petitioner’s counsel may not be present on some unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, I am inclined to modify the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.43426/2018 and to grant an opportunity to the petitioner that, in case, the petitioner submits representation with regard to his grievance within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to the competent authority, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation, which may be submitted by the petitioner, by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.43426/2018 is modified.
Accordingly, review petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB