CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 09 SHI CK 0288

Truck Operator Union Rohru vs Himachal Pradesh State Co-Operative Marketing And Consumer Federation Ltd. & Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 16 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, CJ · Anoop Chitkara, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No. 36 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 361 words

L. Narayana Swamy , CJ

1.

By way of this Review Petition, judgment passed by this Court on 18.08.2020 is sought to be reviewed by respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of on the submission made by the petitioner(respondent No.4 herein) that if respondents No.1 to 3 adhered to the award as per the tender notification, they do not press the second prayer made in the writ petition. In view of the said submission, the writ petition was disposed of.

2.

After the disposal of the writ petition a letter dated 21.08.2020 (Annnexure RP-7) was addressed to the review petitioner stating therein that by virtue of judgment passed in the writ petition, the award made in favour of the review petitioner has been withdrawn and it was initimated to the review petitioner to approach the office of Incharge Himfed, A.O. Shimla-2 for the purpose of entering into a new agreement.

3.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the review petition was filed. It is the submission of the review petitioner that though in the writ petition there is no such reference against respondent No.4 (review petitioner herein) but an intimation was made to appear before respondents No.1 to 3 for entering into a new agreement. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that inadvertently letter dated 21.08.2020 was issued to the review petitioner, but, now the same stands withdrawn.

4.

In view of the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 that letter dated 21.08.2020 has been withdrawn, the review petition becomes infructuous.

5.

Accordingly, we feel that the review petition is to be dismissed on two counts. Firstly, the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC does not make out any case for interference by this Court as there is no error apparent on the face of record. Secondly, since the letter dated 21.08.2020 has been withdrawn by respondents No.1 to 3, therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the present review petition.

6.

With these observations, the review petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.