Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
This is an application for review of judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 1209(M/B) of 2016.
The applicant has appeared in person.
The only ground argued is that subsequent to the said decision the petitioner-applicant came in possession of certain information provided by the Election Commission of India vide its letter dated 25.05.2016 addressed to Major S.N. Tripathi who happens to be the father of petitioner-applicant and vide another letter dated 23.08.2016 addressed to Shri P.N. Kalpi, wherein, it appears that the Election Commission itself is not aware of the provision under which political parties are using the symbols allotted to them beyond the period of notified election or contested election. The submission is that these documents are not available with the petitioner-applicant earlier. Hence this application for review as according to her, they have material bearing on the subject matter in issue.
We have perused the documents annexed as Annexures No. 2 and 3 i.e. the alleged replies under the Right to Information Act. Apart from the fact that such information under the RTI Act can not by the rules constitute any material basis for seeking a review of the judgment dated 11.01.2021 especially where legal issues such as those already discussed in our judgment are involved, we find that in letter dated 25.05.2016, though, it is mentioned that there is no information as to whether the symbol reserved for a political party can be used or not beyond the period of notified election or contested election, but, in the same vein it is also mentioned that the applicant may refer to Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Orders, 1968'). There is no occasion for us to review our judgment dated 11.01.2021 on the basis of the said informations provided under the Right to Information Act, as, the subject matter in issue was covered by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the statute, Rules made thereunder and the Orders, 1968 which have already been discussed. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the applicant for reviewing the said judgment. The material now brought on record does not have any material bearing on the issue already discussed. The second information provided by letter dated 23.08.2016 also does not persuade us to review our judgment. We do not find any merit in the review application and dismiss the same.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 11.2.2021 R.K.P.