On 8th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Prateek Jalan held that an attempt to reagitate issues which had already been decided in the judgment under review cannot be permitted. It further stated that a review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated.
Facts of the case:
The present review petition was filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 04.06.2021 by which W.P.(C) No. 6007 of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. By the judgment under review, this Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for the same relief.
The contention of the Petitioner:
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the father of the petitioner, submitted the following contention:
According to Mr. Singh, the Court passed orders upon its satisfaction on the point of territorial jurisdiction, and the issue was no longer open.
Mr. Singh’s next submission was that the judgment under review was in error in holding that the ground, upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, was that the head office of the Central Board of Secondary Education [“CBSE”] is situated in New Delhi.
According to Mr. Singh, the cause of action also arose in New Delhi as the byelaws, regulations etc., framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi.
Mr. Singh further submitted that the Court had failed to take into account the documents on record which demonstrate that the CBSE was to take action against the School in its office at New Delhi, notwithstanding that the school in question is admittedly situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Mr. Singh next argued that the cause of action for the present writ petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, due to acts committed by the respondent-School during the pendency of the writ petition.
It was also submitted that the petitioner was unable to take the examinations in question due to the doctrine of impossibility therefore the judgement of the divisional bench was erroneous.
Observation and judgment of the court:
The Honourable bench of the court observed the following:
- Mr. Singh is unable to point out any such order and submits that the decision on territorial jurisdiction is “implicit” in the subsequent orders of the Court. Mr. Singh’s ground of review on this account is therefore rejected.
- The framing of byelaws, regulations etc., at the head office of the CBSE does not confer a right upon the parties in any part of the country to approach this Court for the ventilation of its grievances. The judgment therefore proceeds on the ground that a different court is a more appropriate court for agitation of those grievances, and the point raised by Mr. Singh is not dispositive of that finding.
- The petitioner is not remediless as far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, as she has been expressly granted liberty to agitate her grievances before the appropriate court, if she is so advised.
The court in the light of the above held that a review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated. Thus, the court found that the filing of the review petition was utterly misconceived, and the arguments meritless.
The review petition was therefore dismissed.