The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 111 of 2023 Ashok Kumar, s/o late Raj Kumar Beldar, r/o Moonidih, Shastri Nagar, PO- Moonidih, Ps-Putki, District-Dhanbad-826116 ...… Appellant Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director having registered office at Koyla Bhawan, PO-Koyla Nagar, PS- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having registered office at Koyla Bhawan, PO-Koyla Nagar, PS-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 3. General Manager(P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having registered office at Koyla Bhawan, PO-Koyla Nagar, PS-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 4. Chief General Manager, Washery Division, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having registered office at Koyla Bhawan, PO-Moonidih, PS-Putki, District- Dhanbad 5. Senior Manager (Personnel), Moonidih Coal Washery, PO-Moonidih, PS- Putki, District-Dhanbad …. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the Respondent-BCCL : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Me. Manish Kumar, Advocate Order No.5/Dated:30th July 2024 --------- The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30th November 2018 passed in Civil Review No.121 of 2015. 2. Office has pointed out the issue of maintainability on the
Facts
ground that the appellant has challenged the order passed in Civil Review No. 121 of 2015 which is not maintainable. 3.
Legal Reasoning
will have no application whatsoever. This Court in DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 6 SCC 782 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1034] also examined the various situations which might arise in relation to the orders passed in review petitions. Reference to paras 25, 25.1, 25.2 and 25.3 is made, which are extracted below for ready reference: (SCC pp. 790-91) “25. Different situations may arise in relation to review petitions filed before a court or tribunal. 25.1. One of the situations could be where the review application is allowed, the decree or order passed by the court or tribunal is 3 vacated and the appeal/proceedings in which the same is made are reheard and a fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest that in such a situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not because it is an order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in a proceeding after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings has been vacated by the court hearing the review petition. 25.2. The second situation that one can conceive of is where a court or tribunal makes an order in a review petition by which the review petition is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified. Such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated reversed or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law. 25.3. The third situation with which we are concerned in the instant case is where the revision petition is filed before the tribunal but the tribunal refuses to interfere with the decree or order earlier made. It simply dismisses the review petition. The decree in such a case suffers neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification. It is an order by which the review petition is dismissed thereby affirming the decree or order. In such a contingency there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the tribunal or court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition.” 4 9. This Court is, therefore, of the view, based upon the aforesaid proposition of law and the factual aspect as discussed hereinabove, that the present appeal is not maintainable and it is dismissed as such. 10. I.A No. 2523 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 634 days is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Sudhir 5
Arguments
Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by contesting the issue of maintainability that two prayers have been made in the present Letters Patent Appeal, first is with respect to setting aside the order dated 22nd July 2015 passed in W.P(S) No.1338 of 2013 and another for setting aside the order dated 30th November 2018 passed in Civil Review No.121 of 2015. 4. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and found that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred only against the order dated 30th November 2018 which was passed in Civil Review No.121 of 2015 and further it is evident from the prayer portion to the present Letters Patent Appeal that the present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30th November 2018 passed in Civil Review No.121 of 2015 without challenging the order dated 22nd July 2015 which was passed under original writ jurisdiction in W.P(S) No.1338 of 2013. 6. Even otherwise also, as per the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 a Letters Patent Appeal is not to be entertained against the two orders i.e. first passed in the original jurisdiction and the another one under the jurisdiction of the Civil Review. 7. Further, it is settled position of law that if the review petition is dismissed by the Court, then in such a contingency there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the order of the Court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition. Reference in this regard may be taken from the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under: “25.3. The third situation with which we are concerned in the instant case is where the revision petition is filed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal refuses to interfere with the decree or order earlier made. It simply dismisses the review petition. The decree in such a case suffers neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification. It is an order by which the review petition is dismissed thereby affirming the decree or order. In such a contingency there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition.” 2 8. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Yashwant Singh Negi (2020) 9 SCC 815 wherein SLP was preferred only against the order dismissing the review petition and the main judgment of the High Court was not challenged, has observed that SLP is not maintainable observing that once High Court refused to entertain review petition and the same was dismissed confirming the main order, there is no question of any merger and aggrieved person has to challenge main order and not order dismissing review petition because on dismissal of review petition, principle of merger does not apply. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “3. We find ourselves unable to agree with the views expressed by this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar, (2008) 14 SCC 295] In our view, once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed confirming the main order, there is no question of any merger and the aggrieved person has to challenge the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because on the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Manohar v. Jaipalsing [Manohar v. Jaipalsing, (2008) 1 SCC 520 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 325] wherein this Court has taken the view that once the review petition is dismissed the doctrine of merger