UNION OF INDIA v. GEETA JOGI

2

Court that it is expected that the writ petitioner will perform her work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. It was further observed that if she does not follow the terms and conditions of the contract, then the respondent authorities i.e. the review petitioners were free to take recourse against her, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

2. The facts, in brief, are that an agreement was executed between the review petitioners and the writ petitioner on 28.09.2021 for appointment as commission agent for selling tickets at Chakarbatha Passenger Halt on Dadhapara- Belha section for year 2021-22. The contract license period was of 5 years from its functioning date which could be extended for 2.6/2.6 years at a time for further 5 years. On account of certain complaints being received against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and in light of the provisions and conditions of the contract, the contract was terminated on 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) and on 23.11.2021, a notice for appointment of commission agent for selling tickets was issued. The said termination and issuance of fresh notice was challenged by the writ petitioner which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2023.

3. Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that as per agreement clause No. 16 of the agreement executed between Department and writ petitioner, the Department can terminate the contract anytime in the event of the Commission agent failing to carry out his contract to the satisfaction, the period of notice is provided under clause 15 whereas the clause 16 does not provide any show notice to be served upon Ticket Commission agent. As such, the observation made by the Hon'ble Court is per say contrary to the clause 16 of the contract executed between the review petitioner and the writ petitioner. The Ticket Counter is an essential services which is used to generate funds for Railways and to facilitate the

3

traveler by granting then Ticket to travel from one place to another, if any discrepancies occur on execution of work, the public at large show their anger towards the management, due several violation on part of writ petitioner various complaints were received. The contractual rights and obligations can only be enforced in a civil court hence the writ petition was not maintainable. The writ petitioner was granted ample opportunity to improve her conduct and perform her obligations as per the prescribed terms and conditions of the contract which she failed to do so. Hence, this Court ought not have allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

4. We have gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition as well as the writ petition.

5. This Court, after taking note of all the relevant aspects of the matter, had arrived at a finding that it is well settled that in case any adverse order is to be passed, the delinquent is required to be given at least an opportunity of hearing which was missing in this case and as such, taking a lenient view, as the writ petitioner is a widow aged about 52 years and has no other source of income for her livelihood, this Court had allowed the writ petition.

6. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioners is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, which is missing in this case.

7. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of

4

an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any ground for review. It appears that the review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law.

8. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651.

9. As a result, this review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. - Sd/- Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit