Dinesh Kalway vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the review petition was not maintainable. While acknowledging the petitioner's contention that the previous order might be erroneous, the Court found that it could not be termed 'palpably erroneous' as required for a review. The Court noted that it had considered the aspect of the 30-day period in paragraph 5.1 of the order under review and had taken a conscious decision, even if that decision was later found to be erroneous. Regarding the non-consideration of the Bombay High Court judgment, the Court stated that this point faded into insignificance because the previous order had relied on a Supreme Court decision to arrive at its conclusion against the petitioner. The Court concluded that the remedy for the petitioner, if they believed the order was erroneous, lay elsewhere and not in a review petition. Therefore, no case for review was made out.

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Kalway, sought a review of a previous High Court order dated June 12, 2023, which had dismissed his writ petition (W.P. No. 3005/2022). The original writ petition concerned the interpretation of Section 128 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS Scheme). The petitioner argued that the previous order was palpably erroneous because it failed to consider a Bombay High Court judgment in the case of A.C. Nielsen Research Services Private Limited vs. Union of India, which held that the 30-day period for rectifying arithmetical or clerical errors under Section 128 was mandatory and not extendable. The petitioner contended that the Court had wrongly taken the view that this period was extendable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 12.06.2023 passed in W.P. No. 3005/2022 is palpably erroneous, warranting a review, specifically concerning the interpretation of Section 128 of the SVLDRS Scheme and the mandatory nature of the 30-day period for rectifying errors. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the previous order was palpably erroneous. They contended that the Court failed to consider the Bombay High Court's judgment in A.C. Nielsen Research Services Private Limited vs. Union of India, which clearly stated that the 30-day period stipulated in Section 128 for carrying out arithmetical/clerical errors is mandatory. The petitioner asserted that the Court's view that this period was extendable was a palpably wrong interpretation. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the review petition. However, the Court's order indicates that the respondents were represented by counsel.