IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA REVIEW PETITION NO.455 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.49245 OF 2015(GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 011.
2. QUARTER MASTER GENERAL QUARTER MASTER GENERAL BRANCH, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI – 110 011.
3. STATION COMMANDER MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELAGAVI – 590 001.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT STATION HEAD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI – 590 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR SMT.SYED SHAHNAZ, CGC) AND:
1. SRI PRABHAKAR R.KATTIMANI S/O SRI RAMA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT HOUSE NO.330, 1ST CROSS, MAIN ROAD, P.O.MANDOLI – 590 008 TALUK BELAGAVI.
2. SRI MAHADEV S/O SRI WAMAN KANABARKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/A BASAVAN GALLI, P.O MANDOLI - 590 008 TALUK BELAGAVI.
3. SRI SATISH S/O SRI YELLAPPA KADAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT MARUTI GALLI, P.O MANDOLI – 590 008 TALUK BELAGAVI.
4. SRI YALLAPPA BHAIRU SHAHAPURKAR S/O SRI BHAIRU SHAHAPURKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/AT SHIVAJI CHOWK, P.O MANDOLI – 590 008 TALUK BELAGAVI.
5. SRI KALLAPPA GAVASU PATIL S/O SRI GOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT PATIL GALLI, P.O.MANDOLI – 590 008 TALUK BELAGAVI.
6. SRI MARUTI KASHINATH KAKATKAR S/O SRI KASHINATH KAKATKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT VITHALDEV GALLI, SAVAGAON P.O. TALUK AND DISTRICT, BELAGAVI – 590 001.
7. SRI WAMAN MURUTHD KANABARKAR S/O SRI MURUTHD KANABARKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT BASAVAN GALLI, P.O.MANDOLI – 590 008.
TALUK BELAGAVI – 590 001.
8. SRI SHIVAJI KHOBANNA KUTRE S/O SRI KHOBANNA KUTRE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE RESIDING AT TANAJI GALLI, SAVAGAON P.O TALUK, DISTRICT:BELAGAVI -590 001.
9. SRI RAGHUNATH SHATTU KUTRE S/O SHATTU KUTRE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE RESIDING AT TANAJI GALLI, SAVAGAON P.O.TALUK, DISTRICT:BELAGAVI -590 001.
10. SRI KALLAPPA YESHWANTH KUTRE S/O SRI YESHWANTH KUTRE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MARUTHI GALLI, SAVAGAON P.O. TALUK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 001.
11. SRI NAVARATAN JAIN S/O SRI PREMCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NO.2268, BHOI GALLI, BELAGARI TALUK AND DISTRICT:BELAGAVI – 590 001.
12. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
13. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
14. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI – 590 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R11 SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K.PUJAR, HCGP FOR R12 TO R14) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.49245 OF 2015(GM-RES-PIL).
***** THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Review petition is filed seeking to review the order passed in writ petition No.49425 of 2015 dated 23-8-2016, in terms whereof, based on the submissions made by the learned Central Government Counsel the order under review was passed.
2. An affidavit is filed by the learned Central Government counsel who appeared in the writ petition. The same is taken on record. She states therein that the statement made by her before the writ Court was a mistake and seeks an apology. The same is disputed by the counsel representing respondents 1 to 11. He contends that there is no error apparent on the face of the record that calls for any interference. He seeks to contend on the merits of the petition and as to how the writ petitioners are entitled for relief.
3. Heard learned counsels.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 11 is on the merits of the petition. Merits cannot form a subject matter of Review. The same would have to be agitated in the writ petition.
5. We have considered the affidavit filed by the learned Central Government Counsel. She has stated that it is out of a sheer mistake that a submission was made. She pleads an apology for the same. In view of the fact that the writ petition was disposed off based on the submissions and also on other grounds, we are of the view that while accepting the affidavit, the order under Review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Since the order under review was based on the submissions made and when such submissions are as a result of a mistake, it is only just and appropriate that the order be recalled and the petition be heard on merits.
6. Consequently, the order dated 23-08-2016, passed in writ petition No.49245 of 2016 is reviewed and recalled. The writ petition is restored to file.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-