Harpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 January, 2009

             RA No.384 of 2008                           1

             In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

                                           RA No.384 of 2008 In
                                           CWP No. 2948 of 1992

                                            Date of Decision: 29.01.2009

Harpal Singh
                                                   ....Applicant.

               Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                   ....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar
        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh


Present: Mr. Krishan Gopal Sharma, Advocate
         for the applicant.
                  ...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The applicant – petitioner was dismissed from service by an

order dated 9.9.1991. The aforesaid order had been passed by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Ropar, in exercise of the powers vested in him

under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 16.1(2)

of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The applicant – petitioner impugned the

aforesaid order dated 9.9.1991, as also, the consequential orders passed in

furtherance of the statutory remedies available to the applicant – petitioner,

by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2948 of 1992. The aforesaid writ petition

was dismissed on 2.11.1995.

The order dated 2.11.1995 passed by this Court while disposing

of Civil Writ Petition No.2948 of 1992, was impugned by the applicant –

petitioner by preferring a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the

Apex Court. The review application presently filed by the applicant –

petitioner reveals, that the aforestated Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
RA No.384 of 2008 2

was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine.

Unruffled by the determination rendered by this Court, as well

as, by the Apex Court, the applicant – petitioner then filed a civil suit to

impugn the order dated 9.9.1991 (as well as, the consequential statutory

orders passed thereupon) at Ludhiana. The averments made in paragraph 2

of the instant review application reveal, that the aforesaid civil suit filed by

the applicant – petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Ludhiana. The applicant – petitioner then preferred an appeal

before the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the applicant –

petitioner informs us, that the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana,

dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the applicant – petitioner. It is

not a matter of dispute, that the applicant – petitioner has not challenged the

order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by preferring a

Regular Second Appeal before this Court. Rather than availing of the

aforesaid remedy, the applicant – petitioner has filed the instant review

application.

Not only is the instant review application not maintainable in

terms of the parameters laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, we are also satisfied, that filing the instant review

application by the applicant – petitioner amounts to a gross misuse of the

jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant – petitioner first approached this

Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2948 of 1992; on the dismissal

thereof, the applicant – petitioner preferred a Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal before the Supreme Court; and on the dismissal thereof, the

applicant – petitioner availed of the remedy of filing a civil suit. Having not

exhausted the remedy available to the applicant – petitioner (consequent
RA No.384 of 2008 3

upon his having filed the aforesaid civil suit), the applicant – petitioner has

approached this Court by filing the instant review application.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the action of the

applicant – petitioner is wholly unreasonable. The applicant – petitioner

had already exhausted two remedies available to him, first by filing Civil

Writ Petition No.2948 of 1992 and then by filing a civil suit on the same

cause of action. On these occasions, the applicant – petitioner was

unsuccessful.

The instant review application is based solely on the fact, that

further particulars became available to the applicant – petitioner during the

course of the civil litigation initiated by him at Ludhiana. This, we are

afraid, cannot be the basis of filing the review application.

We are satisfied, that exemplary costs deserve to be imposed on

the applicant – petitioner in view of the factual position depicted in the

immediately two preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, the instant review

application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the applicant –

petitioner with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within one month from

today and a receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of the instant case.

In case, the aforesaid costs are not deposited within the time stipulated

hereinabove, the Registry is directed to re-list this case for motion hearing

for recovery of costs.

Disposed of accordingly.

                                                    ( J.S. Khehar )
                                                           Judge


29.01.2009                                          ( Nawab Singh )
        sk.                                                Judge.