Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Uday Goswami & Ors.

Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-

This review application was preferred by the Eastern Coalfields Limited in respect of the judgment passed in writ petition being no. 11252 of 2018 on 21 February, 2024. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Eastern Coalfields Limited, has submitted that the judgment dated 21^st February, 2024 was passed without serving any notice to the present petitioner being one of the respondents. The learned Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to record in the judgment “heard Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.” Although in the first page of the judgment dated 21.02.2024, the name of the learned advocate Mr. Bijoy Kumar was shown as present. It is also submitted by Mr. Kumar that the learned Co-ordinate bench did not consider that although two persons were appointed for their land being acquired, the above writ petition was filed praying for appointment of another person of the same family for the self-same land acquired by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. According to Mr. Kumar this was a fraud exercised upon Court and as fraud unravels everything, the judgment and order passed in connection with WPA No. 11252 of 2018 is required to be reviewed by this Bench.

Mr. Kumar has relied upon following judgments:-

S.P. Chengelvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath reported in 1994 SCC (1) 1,

A.V. Papayya Sastri vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221

Vishnu Vandhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. Uttarpradesh reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1501

Sakati Bala Samanta vs. Union of India reported (2001) 1 Cal.L.J.572

Mr. Kumar has further submitted that on the relevant date and time the learned counsel of the petitioner was seriously ill and, therefore, he could not appear during hearing of the case. In support of his contention he has submitted some medical documents viz. Patient Evaluation Reports.

The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee appearing for the respondents/writ petitioner has submitted that the contention of the review applicant are not correct. In this regard, Mr. Banerjee has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 20 of the judgment. According to him all aspects of the matter are taken into consideration by the learned co-ordinate Bench before passing the judgement under review on 21.02.2024. As there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the review application deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

Mr. Banerjee has relied upon several judgments which are as follows:-

Moran Mar Basselios Catholics and another vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. Reported in AIR 1954 SC 526

Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and Ors.reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337

Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) SCC OnLine SC 211.

Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170.

Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna and Anr. Reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1927,

S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464

State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612

A. Muniswamy and Anr. Vs. Smt. Selvi reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 246

Tara Bai vs. Krishnaswamy Rao reported in 1985 SCC OnLine Kar 187

Mr. Kumar, in reply has submitted that all principles of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in the writ jurisdiction, which is very clear from Section 141 of the Code. All the judgments cited from the side of the writ petitioners are based on Civil Procedure Code, but not a single judgment is applicable in the instant case. He has further submitted that technicalities cannot defeat the law. According to him, fraud corrupts everything. The writ petitioners have suppressed that Mr. Pradyut Goswami and Mr. Tapan Goswami have already got job against same plot of land. The question arises how many persons will get the job against the same plot of land of 1.08 acres. This is a matter of enquiry. How two of the uncles of the writ petitioners have get employment against 1.08 acres of land. 1 Acre of land required for one employment as per the then policy. The writ petitioners have not denied this.

Needless to mention, review application is entertainable only on three conditions as mentioned in order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. For proper understanding the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is recalled as hereunder:

From the above provisions, it appears that an application for review of judgment is entertainable on any of the following grounds: firstly, if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced by the applicant in spite of his due diligence at the time when the order was passed; secondly, such a review application is also entertainable when there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and thirdly, such a review application is maintainable when there are other sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of the Court.

The judgments referred to by the writ petitioners/respondents show that the Court can exercise review jurisdiction only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is also laid down that, in the guise of a review application, the parties are not given liberty to move an application against the impugned order, which is in essence an appeal. The appellate jurisdiction and review jurisdiction are completely different, and by exercising review jurisdiction, a Single Bench cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.

Time and again Mr. Kumar has argued that the impugned judgment was passed ex parte, but if we peruse the judgment dated 21.02.2024, we shall find that the petitioner/review applicant was given sufficient opportunity to bring on record their stand by way of swearing an affidavit. The learned Co-ordinate Bench has categorically mentioned in its judgment under review that the Court did not receive any assistance from the review applicant/respondents therein. For the purpose of proper understanding, paragraph 4 is reproduced below:

Again in paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Court observes:

It appears from the record that the learned Co-ordinate Bench has elaborately discussed relevant policies of the Ministry of Coal as well as several relevant communications. The learned Trial Judge has also recorded regarding the non-assistance of the review applicant/respondent as hereunder:

Therefore, from the above, it appears that it is incorrect to say that the review applicant was not given any opportunity to bring on record their stand by way of an affidavit. On the other hand, the said judgment reveals that the review applicant was given sufficient opportunity from 2018, but they did not take proper steps to bring on record their stand. The learned judge lamented that he did not receive any assistance from the review applicant, and after considering all the materials on record, the Court passed the judgment under review on 21st February 2024.

Mr. Kumar has taken the plea that as he was seriously ill, the review applicant was not properly represented during the hearing of the writ application. In this regard, he has submitted several documents from Tata Medical Centre, New Town, Kolkata. It appears that those documents are dated 03.11.2023, 01.12.2023, 18.01.2024, and 01.02.2024 (Patient’s Evaluation Summary). All these documents date from November 2023 to June 2025. There is no explanation received regarding what Eastern Coalfields Limited was doing since the year 2018, when the writ petition was filed and leave was obtained from the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench for filing an affidavit-in-opposition against the writ petition, being W.P. No. 11252 of 2018.

It is true that the conducting lawyer was, as per his submission, seriously ill. But when a learned counsel knows that he is seriously ill, it is his duty to inform his client to engage another counsel. By taking such a plea of illness from the year 2023, the petitioner, Eastern Coalfields Limited, cannot be allowed to challenge the judgment under review on the ground that sufficient opportunities were not provided to it. It is a duty cast upon Eastern Coalfields Limited to take an appropriate defence in the writ petition by filing an appropriate affidavit to bring their stand on record. When the counsel was ill, they could have easily engaged another counsel to bring on record their stand; this lackadaisical attitude on the part of Eastern Coalfields Limited does not mean that the judgment under review was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/review applicant. In fact, there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

Although it is true that the judgments cited by the respondent/writ petitioner are based on the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1, in my view, the consideration of a review application before a Court of law is to be guided by one universal principle: whether a judgment under review has any error apparent on the face of the record, or whether the petitioner/review applicant has suddenly discovered new evidence to counter the writ application, or whether there are other sufficient reasons for allowing such a review application.

After the above discussion, it appears that the review applicant has utterly failed to show that they received new evidence or documents to counter the writ petition after the passing of the judgment. The review applicant has further failed to show that there was any error apparent on the face of the record, and thirdly, the applicant has failed to show that there was sufficient reason for not bringing on record their stand by way of submitting an affidavit since 2018. The plea of illness of the concerned advocate arises only towards the fag end of 2023, and the review applicant had sufficient opportunity to engage another counsel to represent them in the writ proceedings.

It appears that WPA 11252 of 2018 was filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the General Manager of Eastern Coalfields Limited. It further appears from the said order dated 12.01.2018 that the General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Pandabeswar area did not take any plea that two uncles of the respondent no. 1 were given employment in the same plots of land as per existing policy and, therefore, there was no scope for appointment of the petitioner or his nominee on account of the acquisition of the same plot of land. Filing this revisional application the applicant is now trying to make out a further new case which was not the basis of the order dated 12.01.2018. This Court cannot reappraise the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction.

In S.P. Chengelvaraya Naidu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. A person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

In A. V. Papayya Sastry (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam. Judgment which was obtained by fraud has to be treated as non est and nullity by all Courts.

In Vishnu Vandhan @ Vishnu Pradhan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe after quoting the decision of A.V. Papayya Sastry (Supra) that once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, the same is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law.

In Sakati Bala Samanta (supra), the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta has reiterated the above principles and quoted the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with the S.P. Chengelvaraya Naidu (supra).

From the above it is clear that if fraud is practiced upon the Court to obtain an order, such an order cannot be acted upon since fraud unravels everything. However, it appears from the record that the case of fraudulent activities were not taken up in the order dated 12.01.2018 as aforesaid. Such a new plea cannot be taken up in a revisional jurisdiction since whether fraud has been committed or not the same requires appraisal of evidence which cannot be done by this Court, particularly, when the order dated 12.01.2018 was conspicuously silent about such allegation of fraud.

In fine, I do not find any material to allow the review application, being RVW No. 125 of 2024, and hence the same is dismissed along with connected pending application, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.