AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Shri M.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant (respondents in OA).
None for the respondents (applicant in OA).
Heard on RA No.7/2019. The counsel for the applicant raised only two points. One is about jurisdiction and second is the concealment of fact.
The impugned order dated 11.12.2018 was passed by the Court at motion stage and at that time the Government counsel was also present, but any objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction was not raised. Therefore, in the stage of Review Petition the aforesaid type of objection cannot be considered.
As far as concealment of fact is concerned, the direction was given to decide the representation dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure A-7). It is submitted by the present petitioners’ counsel Shri M.K. Sharma that the representation was also been decide, but the applicant did not disclose the aforesaid fact.
The deciding of the representation is mentioned in the application, but any order passed upon the representation has not been filed. No any proof of communication to the applicant is filed alongwith the application. Therefore, primafacie it cannot be said that the representation was already been decide. Even the representation was decide, then that was not communicated to the applicant.
Hence, in view of Court no reason is found to review the entire order. Hence, Review Application is dismissed, but it is mentioned that if the representation was already been decided then the respondents may communicate the decision taken by the registered post to the applicant within one month from today. All the pending MA’s (if any) will be treated as disposed of.