AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Review Petition 409/2018
This petition seeks review of the judgment dated 27th September, 2018, passed by me in WP(C) 8500/2016. Mr. Sarfaraz Khan appearing for the
review petitioner submits only two grounds, to justify his prayer for review, which, according to him, have not been considered by this Court while
passing the judgment under review. The first is that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. The second is that no writ petition would lie for
a relief such as that which was claimed by the petitioner and granted by this Court.
On the first point, learned counsel candidly accepts that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, but states that the
petitioner is required to approach the Court within a reasonable period. I do not see how this can be a ground to seek review of the impugned
judgment passed by this Court.
On the second aspect, i.e. regarding maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel would submit that a writ petition, merely seeking refund of
the bond money, would not lie. He has placed reliance, in this regard, on Sh. Santanu Sur v. Gail India Limited, 2014 (145) DRJ 109.
A bare reading of the said judgment, on which the learned counsel seek to rely, makes it clear that it recognizes that a writ petition can in fact, be
entertained for refund of money. In fact, Mr. Khan himself drew my attention to clause (iii) in para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus :
“(iii) A petition for issue of writ of mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money, to the return
of which the petitioner claims a right. The aggrieved party seeking refund has to approach the Civil Court for claiming the amount, though the High
Courts have the power to pass appropriate orders in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 for payment of money;â€
(Emphasis supplied)
A bare reading of the clause on which learned counsel relies indicates that there is no bar to a writ Court entertaining a claim for refund of money.
On the attention of learned counsel being drawn to this aspect, he seeks to fall back on the submission that his absence, on the date of hearing, was
owing to inadvertent circumstances.
Be that as it may, in my view, no case of exercise of review jurisdiction by this Court, is made out in the present case. The review petition is
accordingly dismissed.
CM No. 46618/2018 (stay)
This is an application for stay, filed in the Review Petition. It is trite that no interim orders can be prayed for, in a review petition. In any case, as
the review petition itself stands dismissed, this application does not survive and is disposed of as such.