IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY REVIEW PETITION Nos. 234/2018 AND 264-265/2018 IN WRIT PETITION Nos.39163-39165/2013 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA SURVEY OF INDIA POST BOX NO.37 DEHRADUN (UTTARAKHAND) INDIA 2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN NEW MEHRAULI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 016 3. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI – 110 016 4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, JCA DIVISION NORTH, NEW DELHI – 110 001 (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC) … PETITIONERS AND:
1. P. MOHAN KRISHNA S/O LATE P. THATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SURVEYOR WNG, KGDC (KARNATAKA GEO-SPATIAL DATA CENTRE) SURVEY OF INDIA, SARJAPUR ROAD KORAMANGALA II BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 034 2. SHRI. GURUPRASAD C. J. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE JAYADHEER C. OFFICE OF SURVEYOR TAMILNADU – PONDICHERY AND ANDAMAN NICOBAR GEO- SPATIAL DATE CENTRE SURVEY OF INDIA THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI – 600 032 3. N. N. RAMAPRASAD S/O N. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OFFICER SURVEYOR WING-IV, KARNATAKA GEO- SPATIAL DATA CENTRE (KGDC) SURVEY OF INDIA SARJAPUR ROAD KORAMANGALA II BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 034 R/AT H.NO.282, 67TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010 … RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2016 PASSED IN W.P. NOS. 39163-39165/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners have preferred these review petitions against the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 39163-39165/2013 (S- CAT) on various grounds.
2. It is seen from the records that, after disposal of the above said writ petitions by this court vide order dated 17.03.2016, challenging the said order, the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking for Special Leave to prefer an appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 24.07.2017 dismissed the Special Leave Petition in SLP Diary No.15355/2017 after condoning the delay and finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. In our opinion, though the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is very short, but it comprises perusal of grounds urged by the appellants therein and finding that no ground is available to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by this court virtually merges with the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
3. Though the learned counsel has brought to our notice the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2432/2019 dated 01.03.2019 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed after following a decision in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359] holding that, the Review Petitions can also be filed after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The contents in Paragraph-27(c) of the said Civil Appeal No.2432/2019 virtually reiterates the contents of Paragraph 37 of the decision in Kunhayammed’s case (Supra). Even at Paragraph-45 of the decision in Kunhayammed’s case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that, -
“45. ……… The prayer contained in the petition seeking leave to appeal to this Court was found devoid of any merits and hence dismissed. The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. All that can be spelled-out is that the Court was not convinced of the need for exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The order of the High Court dated 17.12.1982 did not merge in the order dated 18.07.1983 passed by this Court. So it is available to be reviewed by the High Court. Moreover such a right of review is now statutorily conferred on the High Court by sub-section (2) of Section 8-C of the Kerala Act. …..”
But, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Hon'ble Apex Court has no opportunity to look into the grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition and simply the appellate Court has refused to grant special leave, then perhaps, the petitioners may avail the right to file Review Petition before the High Court. But, sofar as these petitions are concerned, it appears, after perusal of the grounds urged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it found that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to look into the grounds and also the order passed by the High Court in the said writ petitions and thereafter found that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the High Court.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any strong reason to entertain these review petitions. Therefore, the delay application-IA No.1/2018 filed for condonation of delay in preferring the review petitions and as well as the review petitions are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the review petitions, the application-IA No.2 filed for Stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KGR*