Not Open For Litigant To Keep Re-Thinking Back And Forth: Himachal Pradesh HC Imposes ₹50,000 Costs On State For Filing Multiple Review Petitions
The Himachal High Court observed that a litigant cannot adopt inconsistent stands and abuse the review process by repetitively raising points previously given up.
The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the State for filing multiple review petitions on the same factual basis.
The State, as the review petitioner, sought to challenge a judgment that had favored the respondent in his writ petition, directing the State to take over the respondent's services as a Lecturer in Economics from September 14, 2006. Following the State's appeal (LPA) against this judgment, which was resolved on October 30, 2018, a review petition was later filed, alleging that the respondent lacked the necessary educational qualifications. The review petition was granted on August 20, 2021, leading to the restoration of the LPA to its original number. However, a second review petition was subsequently filed by the State, reiterating the claim of the respondent's supposed lack of qualifications under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held, “A litigant cannot be permitted to take inconsistent, contradictory & shifting stands in the same case at his whims & fancies. It is not open for a litigant to keep re-thinking back and forth after the pronouncement of the judgment in order to have it reviewed multiple times on the same ground. No case for review is made out.”
Advocate Anup Rattan appeared for the Appellants.
The Court noted that the ground for the current review was the same as the one given up by the review petitioner during the hearing of the LPA. The Court said, “That being the position, we fail to understand as to how the review petitioner has filed this second review petition on the same ground which it had already taken and given up during hearing of the appeal. The power of review can be exercised by the Court for correction of a mistake, within four corners of law, but not to give undue latitude to a litigant to abuse the process of Court by filing successive review petitions for repetitively urging a point which was the sole basis for allowing the earlier review petition but later on assertively given up during re-hearing. Such kind of virtually the second review petition on same ground that was given up earlier, cannot be entertained.”
The Court expressed confusion over why the review petitioner filed a second review petition on the same ground.
The Court dismissed the review petition, citing the lack of a case for review and the delay of 207 days in filing it. The Court added, “There is delay of 207 days in instituting the review petition. As per the pleadings, the certified copy of the judgment dated 17.11.2022 was available with the review petitioner on 04.01.2023, but it was decided to file the review petition on 01.04.2023, which was eventually filed on 13.09.2023. There is no explanation for the period between 04.01.2023 to 01.04.2023 and from 01.04.2023 to 13.09.2023.”
The Court thus held, “Looking to the conduct of the review petitioner in filing multiple review petitions on same factual ground which was assertively given up by it during hearing of the appeal after its restoration as a consequence of allowing of first review petition, we impose a costs of Rs. 50,000/- upon the review petitioner to be deposited within three weeks in the ‘Chief Minister Apada Rahat Kosh’.”
Cause Title: State Of H.P. v. Chaman Lal Bali & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment
