Mahendra Pratap Tiwari vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's apprehension that the transferred post is already occupied is not a valid ground for entertaining a review petition. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that review petitions are entertained only in cases of apparent error on the face of the record, citing several Supreme Court decisions. The Court opined that the petitioner's grievance would only materialize if he actually reported for joining at the transferred place and was refused. Until such refusal occurs, the petitioner has no present cause of action to agitate the issue. The Court stated that the information about the post being occupied could be a ground for filing a fresh petition if the petitioner is refused joining, but it does not warrant a review of the previous order. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahendra Pratap Tiwari, an Assistant Commissioner State Tax, filed a review petition seeking to review an order dated September 4, 2019, passed by the High Court in WPS No. 7033/2019. The original writ petition had been disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to approach the authorities by way of a representation. The petitioner, however, had not yet made any representation. The grounds for the review petition were that the petitioner subsequently learned that the post to which he was transferred was already occupied, potentially making joining difficult. The petitioner had gathered this information and sought review of the earlier order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension that the transferred post is already occupied, leading to potential difficulty in joining, constitutes a valid ground for entertaining a review petition, given that the original writ petition was disposed of with a direction to make a representation. Arguments: Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he subsequently came to know that the post of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, to which he was transferred, is already occupied and filled, which may cause him difficulty in joining. This new information, he implied, warranted a review of the previous order. Respondent-State: The respondent-State did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment regarding the grounds for review. However, the Court's observations indicate that the petitioner's grievance would only arise if he attempted to join at the transferred place and was refused, and that the current apprehension alone was not a sufficient ground for review.