Supreme Court · 2025 on 21 May 2025

Judgment

2. Heard. The only question involved in this Writ Petition is, as to whether the Revisional Authority in exercise of its power under Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, could review its order passed earlier on 14.05.2019 on merits i.e. not on procedural issues amounting to procedural review but review on merits, recall the said order and pass a fresh order to the contrary, meaning thereby in the earlier order, the revision had been allowed and by the subsequent order dated 20.10.2020, the same has been dismissed.

3. Review is a creation of statute. It is a statutory remedy. The only exception is a case of procedural review. The concept of procedural review has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors.; 1980 (Supp) SCC 420.

4. We have perused the order impugned dated 20.10.2020. It is not a case of procedural review but a case of review on merits of the Page No. 2 of 8 matter based on subsequent events i.e. events subsequent to the order dated 14.05.2019 by which the revision of the petitioner was allowed. We have perused the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It does not contain any provision for review of a final order passed under Section 41 of the said Act, 1973.

In fact, this issue cropped up before this Court in Writ C No.1814 of 2025 (M/s Ester Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, wherein an order was passed on 04.04.2025 on the following terms:- "1. Heard.

2. Affidavits filed by Principal Secretary and Special Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. in compliance of our order dated 25.03.2025, are taken on record.

3. In compliance of our order dated 25.03.2025, Shri Alok Kumar, Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. has joined the proceedings through video conferencing.

4. In further compliance of our order dated 25.03.2025, the review application, which was filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority allegedly under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, has been rejected as not maintainable on 27.03.2025, a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure no. A-3 to the affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P., who is also the revisional authority.

5. The Principal Secretary states that he was not informed about the order dated 28.02.2025, otherwise he would have ensured compliance earlier. The fact remains that we had passed on

28.02.2025. Even if we take into consideration the fact that revisional authority was assigned the work only on 05.03.2025, even then there were 20 days available to decide the review and if the same could not be decided for any reason, atleast the Court Page No. 3 of 8 should have been informed about the situation on 25.03.2025, but even this was not done and the letters of the Standing Counsel were not responded, that is why we had summoned the Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. today to join the proceedings through video conferencing and had also proposed imposition of cost of Rs.21,000/- because such non-responsiveness unnecessarily delays the proceedings, as has happened in this case. However, after hearing the Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. we are of the opinion that instead of Rs.21,000/- a cost of Rs.5,500/- should be imposed, which is hereby imposed and ordered to be deposited with ten days.

6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. who is present today need not appear again, unless otherwise ordered by this Court.

7. Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that he has instructions to the effect that the said order passed on

27.03.2025 as also the revisional order dated 21.12.2023 are proposed to be challenged by means of a writ petition before this Court.

8. Be that as it may, the fact is that there is an order passed in revision on 21.12.2023, which has remained un-complied and no such provision has been pointed out in law under which the revisional authority can get it complied.

9. Let the respondent no.3- Chief Executive Officer, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P. comply the said revisional order dated 21.12.2023 and submit his affidavit in this regard by the next date or show cause.

10. List on 06.05.2025 as fresh. It is made clear that this order has been passed without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the opposite parties to challenge the order dated 21.12.2023. " Page No. 4 of 8

5. In pursuance thereof, the Revisional Authority decided the revision which was involved in the said case, by an order dated

27.03.2025 clearly holding that the review application was not maintainable, the said order reads as under:- **************** उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश शासन औ्ቕोगि(cid:16)क गि(cid:18)कास अनुभा(cid:16)-4 संख्या-1508/77-4-25-53 अपील 2023 लखनऊ: गिदनांक 27 मा्ቊ , 2025 मे० इस्टर ए्ቇो ्ቚोडक्ट्स इण्डस्ट्रीज ्ቚा० लिल० पुनरी्ቌणकቔኋा बनाम यूपीसीडा, लखनपुर कानपुर गि(cid:18)प्ቌी(cid:16)ण यूपीसीडा में आ(cid:18)ंगिटቔኋ प्लाट संख्या B-1 (Bulk plot), industrial area Sandila, District Hardoi के सम्बन्ध में ्ቚाधिधकरण ्ቛारा पारिरቔኋ गिनरस्ቔኋीकरण आदेश गिदनांक 29.10.2020 ए(cid:18)ं ्ቚाधिधकरण ्ቛारा जारी धिडमाण्ड नोगिटस गिदनांक 17.06.2020 के गि(cid:18)रू्ቍ मे० इस्टर ए्ቇो ्ቚोडक्ट्स इण्डस्ट्रीज ्ቚा०लिल० ्ቛारा उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश अब न प्लािሪन(cid:16) एण्ड डे(cid:18)लपमेंट एक्ट 1973 की धारा 41 (3) सपगि@ቔኋ उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश औ्ቕोगि(cid:16)क ्ቌे्ቔ गि(cid:18)कास अधिधगिनयम 1976 की धारा 12 के अंቔኋ(cid:16) ቔኋ योजिजቔኋ पुनरी्ቌण याधि्ቊका के ्ቅम में शासन स्ቔኋर से पारिरቔኋ गिनस्ቔኋारण आदेश संख्या-7794/77-4-23/अपील 53/2023 गिदनांक 21.12.2023 पर पुनብኌ(cid:18)्ቊार गिकए जाने का अनुरोध मुख्य काय पालक अधिधकारी, यूपीसीडा के प्ቔ संख्याः-89/ यूपीसीडा / बी-1 संडीला, गिदनांक 05.04.2024 ्ቛारा गिकया (cid:16)या। 2 अ(cid:18)(cid:16)ቔኋ कराना है गिक उ०्ቚ० अब न प्लािሪन(cid:16) एण्ड डे(cid:18)लपमेंट एक्ट, 1973 की धारा 41 में (cid:18)ቓኌणቔኋ ्ቚागि(cid:18)धान गिनम्न(cid:18)ቔኋ हैं:-

41. Control by State Government.-(1) The '[Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman] shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or Vice-Chairman] under this Act any dispute arises between the '[Authority, the Chairman or Vice-Chairman) and the State Government, the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final. (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the '[Authority, the Chairman or Vice-Chairman] Page No. 5 of 8 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit: Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicialing any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. [(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.] उ्ሹ के अधिቔኋरिर्ሹ उ०्ቚ० औ्ቕोगि(cid:16)क ्ቌे्ቔ गि(cid:18)कास अधिधगिनयम , 1976 की धारा 12 में (cid:18)ቓኌणቔኋ ्ቚागि(cid:18)धान गिनम्न(cid:18)ቔኋ है:-

12. The provisions of Chapter VII and Sections 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as re-enacted and modified by the Uttar Pradesh President's Act (Re-enactment with Modifications) Act, 1974, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the Authority with adaptation that- (a) any reference to the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to this Act: (b) any reference to the Authority constituted under the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the Authority constituted under this act, and (c) Any reference to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority shall be deemed to be a reference to the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority.

3. उ्ቤेखनीय है गिक मा० उ्ሴ न्यायालय , लखनऊ बें्ቊ लखनऊ में योजिजቔኋ रिरट याधि्ቊका (एम/एस) संख्या-10675/2020 सु्ቚभा इण्डस्टीज लिल० बनाम उ०्ቚ० राज्य (cid:18) अन्य के सम्बन्ध में गिदनांक 05.07.2021 को मा० न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरቔኋ आदेश का सार(cid:18)ान अंश गिनम्न(cid:18)ቔኋ् हैः- (7) On a careful consideration of the rival submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the revisional power once exercised by the State Government attains finality by virtue of Section 41 (4). This exercise of power on a clear reading of the statutory provision is not open to review inasmuch as the power to review unless conferred by the statute in respect of the final orders cannot be exercised to unsettle a position which has attained finality. The only exception is a case of fraud which is not the situation at hand. The submission put forth by learned counsel for the opposite party, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be rejected. The impugnedng order passed by the State Government is undoubtedly, without Page No. 6 of 8 authority of law and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. (8) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. This however does not suggest that the UPSIDC is prevented from invoking the remedy as may be available in law. इसी सम्बन्ध में मा० उ्ሴቔኋम न्यायालय , नई गिद्ቤी के याधि्ቊका Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437. में मा0 न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरቔኋ आदेश का गि्ቅयात्मक अंश गिनम्न(cid:18)ቔኋ् हैः-

12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit. the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without Jurisdiction. (Vide Purel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh².)

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khar, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute, Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or clarification/modification/correction permissible.

4. अቔኋः मा० उ्ሴቔኋम / उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरቔኋ उपरो्ሹ आदेशों ए(cid:18)ं उ०्ቚ० अब न प्लािሪन(cid:16) एण्ड डे(cid:18)पलमेंट एक्ट 1973 की धारा 41 (3) सपगि@ቔኋ औ्ቕोगि(cid:16)क ्ቌे्ቔ गि(cid:18)कास अधिधगिनयम 1976 की धारा 12 में उजि्ቤलिखቔኋ ्ቚागि(cid:18)धानों के दृगिT(cid:16)ቔኋ यूपीसीडा में आ(cid:18)ंगिटቔኋ प्लाट संख्या B-1 (Bulk plot), industrial area Sandila, District Hardoi के सम्बन्ध मे ्ቚाधिधकरण ्ቛारा पारिरቔኋ गिनरस्ቔኋीकरण आदेश गिदनांक 29.10.2020 ए(cid:18)ं ्ቚाधिधकरण ्ቛारा जारी धिडमाण्ड नोगिटस गिदनांक 17.06.2020 के गि(cid:18)रू्ቍ मे० इस्टर ए्ቇो ्ቚोडक्टस इण्डस्टीज Page No. 7 of 8 ्ቚा०लिल० ्ቛारा उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश अब न प्लािሪन(cid:16) एण्ड डे(cid:18)लपमेंट एक्ट 1973 की धारा 41 (3) सपगि@ቔኋ उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश औ्ቕोगि(cid:16)क ्ቌे्ቔ गि(cid:18)कास अधिधगिनयम 1976 की धारा 12 के अंቔኋ(cid:16) ቔኋ योजिजቔኋ पुनरी्ቌण याधि्ቊका के ्ቅम में शासन स्ቔኋर से पारिरቔኋ गिनस्ቔኋारण आदेश सख्या-7794/77-4-23/अपील 53 / 2023 गिदनांक 21.12.2023 पर यूपीसीडा के प्ቔ गिदनांक 05.04.2024 ्ቛारा पुनብኌ(cid:18)्ቊार गिकए जाने सम्बन्धी गिकया (cid:16)या अनुरोध पोषणीय नहीं है। ቔኋ्቎ुसार मुख्य काय पालक अधिधकारी, यूपीसीडा के प्ቔ गिदनांक 05.04.2024 को एቔኋद््ቛारा गिनरस्ቔኋ करቔኋे हुए गिनस्ቔኋारिरቔኋ गिकया जाቔኋा है। ቔኋ्቎ुसार अ्ቇቔኋर आ(cid:18)श्यक काय (cid:18)ाही सुगिनधिZቔኋ गिकया जाय। पीयूष (cid:18)मा गि(cid:18)शेष सधि्ቊ(cid:18)। संख्या - 1508 (1)/77-4-25 ቔኋ गि[नांक ्ቚधिቔኋलिलगिप गिनम्नलिललिखቔኋ को सू्ቊना्ቕ ए(cid:18)ं आ(cid:18)श्यक काय (cid:18)ाही हेቔኋु ्ቚेगिषቔኋः- 1. मुख्य काय पालक अधिधकारी, यूपीसीडा, कानपुर। 2. अधिधकृ ቔኋ हस्ቔኋा्ቌरी, मै० इस्टर ए्ቇो ्ቚोडक्ट्स ्ቚा०लिल०, 405, शालीमार टायटेगिनयम, गि(cid:18)भूधिቔኋ खण्ड, (cid:16)ोमቔኋीन(cid:16)र, लखनऊ। 3. (cid:16)ाड फाईल । आ्ሺा से, (जय (cid:18)ीर िሺसह) संयु्ሹ सधि्ቊ(cid:18) । ****************

6. The Revisional Authority has himself considered the provision of the Act, 1973, as also various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court before arriving at the conclusion that review application seeking review of an order passed under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 is not maintainable. We are also of the view that the review proceedings undertaken by the Revisional Authority in this case resulting in the order dated 20.10.2020, by which the earlier order dated 14.05.2019 has been recalled and the revision, which was earlier allowed, has been dismissed on merits, were impermissible, therefore, we quash the impugned order, consequently the earlier Revisional order dated 14.05.2019 stands revived, however, we grant liberty to the opposite party No.2 i.e. Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority to challenge the order dated 14.05.2019 as per law.

7. The Writ Petition stands allowed. Page No. 8 of 8 (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench