AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the reasons set out, the delay in instituting the Review Petition is condoned. Interim Application (st) No.34512 of 2024 is disposed of.
This Review Petition is entirely misconceived. In the first place, arguments that had never been advanced earlier are now sought to be advanced. Secondly, this is done by engaging a different counsel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly deprecated such practice.
However, Mr. Purohit, the learned Senior Advocate for the Review Petitioners, submitted that they have no grievance with the order dated 10 October 2024. Mr. Purohit, however, states that the Review Petitioners apprehend that the State Government may not reimburse the benefit to the Petitioner-Bank due to the observations of the Nodal Officer in his communication dated 29 October 2020.
Mr Purohit submits that this Court should have gone further and directed the government to reimburse the amount that the review petitioner is now required to pay to the original petitioner after holding them eligible under the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Shetkari Sanman Yojana-2017. Such a contention is premature, and in any event, this would be way beyond the scope of our review jurisdiction.
Since no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, is pointed out, we dismiss this Petition.
The learned counsel for the Original Petitioner (Farmer) states that the Petitioner has deposited the balance amount in terms of paragraph 16 of our order dated 10 October 2024, of which review is sought. He points out that despite such a deposit, the gold ornaments pledged by the Original Petitioner have not been returned by the Review Petitioner (Bank). The Review Petitioner bank must not prolong the Farmer’s agony any further.
Accordingly, the Review Petitioner should comply with our order and return gold ornaments to the Original Petitioner within a week of uploading the present order without forcing the Original Petitioner (Farmer) to institute contempt proceedings before this Court.
The Review Petitioner is undoubtedly free to pursue the issue of reimbursement with the State Government, inter alia, by relying upon our judgment and order dated 10 October 2024. But that cannot be grounds to disobey our order and deny relief to the Farmer Petitioner, who has been pursuing this matter for the last six years.
A compliance report should be filed in this Court by 11 December 2024. We post this matter on 13 December to consider compliance.