Where an issue has already been decided in a judgement and later a review petition is filed to review such Judgement, then a person cannot treat the review petition as a second opportunity to argue the matters which already had been adjudicated earlier. A single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Prateek Jalan, in the matter of Riddhima Singh (Minor) through her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. (W.P.(C) 6007/2019), dealt with an issue where the petitioner is seeking review of the judgement of this court, by a review petition.
In the present case, the high court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner stating that it was not maintainable on the ground of forum non conveniens, and thereby stated that the petitioner had the liberty to approach the appropriate court for the relief.
Mr. Singh, the father of the petitioner, himself argued both the writ petition and the review petition. This court directed Mr. Singh to crystallise his submissions within the parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Singh’s first argument was on the question of territorial Jurisdiction, to which he stated that this question was also dealt with in the first order of this court and further this question has not been reiterated in any further orders. Hence, he submitted that the court passed the further orders, on being satisfied with the question of territorial jurisdiction, and so the issue was no longer open.
The court however had a view that Mr. Singh’s submission regarding territorial Jurisdiction was wholly misconceived. The court contended that the first order stated that all issues including the question on territorial jurisdiction remain open, as well as nowhere this issue was decided in favour of Mr. Singh. The court also pointed out that on an order dated 26/11/2020, it specifically stated that the petition would be heard inter alia on the question of maintainability with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Thereby the court rejected this ground for review stated by Mr. Singh.
Mr. Singh submitted that it was wrongly held in the Judgement, questioning the ground upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, as because according to him, cause of action arose in New Delhi, supporting which he submitted that the byelaws, regulations etc., framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi. On this, the court contended that- “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”. Further, the court pointed out as the petitioner was a resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the school was also located there, hence a different court would have been appropriate for those grievances.
Mr. Singh further Submitted that the observations in the judgment under review with regard to the order of the Division Bench of this Court was erroneous so much so that the petitioner was unable to take the examinations in question due to the doctrine of impossibility. The court here stated that in this regard the order of the divisional bench spoke for itself and hence stated that Mr Singh’s submission on this does not call for a review of the Judgement.
Mr. Singh had also challenged the judgement of the division bench and had approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP, but The Apex Court had dismissed the SLPs. Mr Singh Had also submitted that he intends to seek review of the Order of the Supreme Court. To which the court contended that such was neither a ground to entertain the present writ petition nor does it call for a review of the judgement that was given by this court.
The court observed that the arguments given by Mr. Singh showed an attempt to reagitate issues which earlier had been decided in the Judgement. Further, the court observed that Mr. Singh argued the merits of the grievances brought out in the writ petition, which the court had declined to enter into. The court also stated that- “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 was also of the view that the filing of the review petition was utterly misconceived, and the arguments by Mr. Singh were meritless, hence the court dismissed the review petition with costs of Rs. 30,000/-, which the court directed to deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks.