Rajdhani Security Force PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the review petition was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court distinguished the present case from W.P. No. 21978/2019, noting that in the latter, the petitioner had explicitly raised the ground of non-communication of the original order, which led to a remand. In contrast, the Court found that in the case leading to the order dated 25.04.2022 (W.P. No. 11498/2021), the petitioner had not raised any such ground. Consequently, the Court had applied Section 107 of the GST Act and found that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of four months, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The Court reiterated that a review petition can only be entertained for an error that is evident upon a bare perusal of the order without requiring any deep investigation. Since no such error was found, the review petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the High Court. The petitioner argued that in an identical case, W.P. No. 21978/2019, an order dated 25.02.2020 was passed which was not brought to the Court's notice. The petitioner contended that the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence from the date of communication of the original order. The Court noted that in the earlier case (W.P. No. 21978/2019), the petitioner had raised the ground of non-communication of the impugned order, leading to a remand. However, in the present case (W.P. No. 11498/2021, which led to the order under review), no such ground was raised by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 25.04.2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review, based on an order passed in an identical case (W.P. No. 21978/2019) concerning the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal from the date of communication of the original order. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Court's order dated 25.04.2022 should be reviewed because an order in an identical case (W.P. No. 21978/2019) was not brought to the Court's attention. This prior order, it was argued, established that the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence from the date of communication of the original order, a point not considered in the current case. The petitioner relied on the order in W.P. No. 21978/2019. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the review petition. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondents likely did not dispute the Court's prior finding in W.P. No. 11498/2021 that no ground of non-communication was raised by the petitioner.