w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Thoru Its M.D. & Another v/s State Of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko.& Others


Company & Directors' Information:- STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300MH1994PTC076485

Company & Directors' Information:- R L GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52393MH2000PTC129981

Company & Directors' Information:- R K R GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27205TZ2006PTC013240

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN GOLD SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15147MH2001PTC132200

Company & Directors' Information:- A B GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910KA2009PTC050184

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01122HP1997PLC020210

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. GOLD LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2017PLC098438

Company & Directors' Information:- N R GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27205MH2008PTC182034

Company & Directors' Information:- P T GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910MH2004PTC147181

Company & Directors' Information:- V A AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01119DL2003PTC121735

Company & Directors' Information:- M J GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28998UP2010PTC039881

Company & Directors' Information:- I M L SEEDS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U01122TG1988PTC008731

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA GOLD LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2010PLC210218

Company & Directors' Information:- M R AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312CT2008PTC020983

Company & Directors' Information:- G M GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109MH2011PTC222275

Company & Directors' Information:- P GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ2011PTC067802

Company & Directors' Information:- J P SEEDS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111UP1998PLC023448

Company & Directors' Information:- GOLD STAR GREEN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01112UP1997PTC021522

Company & Directors' Information:- S GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36912MH2013PTC241858

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28121MH2012PTC237480

Company & Directors' Information:- S. O. GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900GJ2013PTC074108

Company & Directors' Information:- V-GOLD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910MH2004PTC146101

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1927PLC005620

Company & Directors' Information:- N & N AGRICULTURE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15137TN1998PTC040875

Company & Directors' Information:- GOLD COMPANY LTD. [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120WB1928PLC006027

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054318

Company & Directors' Information:- P A AGRICULTURE PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U01400WB2006PTC109723

Company & Directors' Information:- J. M. GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2015PTC269343

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC149133

Company & Directors' Information:- MD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC306314

Company & Directors' Information:- GOLD AGRICULTURE INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01400MP2012PLC028203

Company & Directors' Information:- MD R INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL1999PTC097812

Company & Directors' Information:- SEEDS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01119AP1974PTC001795

Company & Directors' Information:- I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01400KA2014PTC076516

Company & Directors' Information:- R S AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U01119PB2002PTC024977

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR T V PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51395UP1985PTC007023

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN GOLD AGRICULTURE (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01110MH1995PLC089558

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN GOLD INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01135GJ1987PLC009702

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR OF INDIA LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999CH1946PLC001119

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51398KL2003PTC016563

Company & Directors' Information:- Y R AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01403PB2014PTC038825

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. STAR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2016PTC056637

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910MH2004PTC144661

Company & Directors' Information:- GREEN COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141TN2013PTC093965

Company & Directors' Information:- S L GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52599HP2013PTC000364

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR O & M PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC281303

Company & Directors' Information:- J D SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01200GJ2015PTC085259

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STAR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2011PTC067973

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GOLD PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U52399MH2006PTC164403

Company & Directors' Information:- STAR LTD. [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1921PTC000957

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND J GREEN INDIA LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1938PTC002830

    Misc. Bench No. 8117 of 2015

    Decided On, 06 August 2020

    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH LAVANIA

    For the Petitioner: A.M. Tripathi, Ankit Singh, Ayush Chaudhary, Gaurav Mehrotra, Utsav Misra, Advocates. For the Respondent: C.S.C., V.P. Nag, V.P. Nag, Vijyant Nigam, Advocates.



Judgment Text


C.M. Application No. 32867 of 2020 (Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt.Ltd.Thoru Its M.D.And Anr. v. State of U.P. and others) (Application for Review)

And

C.M. Application No. 36424 of 2020 (U.P. Seed Development Corporation, Faizabad Road, Mahanagar, Lucknow through its Managing Director and another v. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt.Ltd.Thoru Its M.D.And Anr.) (Application for Review).

The C.M. Application No. 32867 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner- M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and C.M. Application No. 36424 has been filed by U.P. Seed Development Corporation and Managing Director, U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam thereby seeking review of judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 8117 (MB) of 2015 (Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others).

In review application No. 32867 of 2020, Sri Utsav Misra, Advocate appeared for the petitioner-Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.P. Nag, Advocate appeared for U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam Ltd., Lucknow (in short "Nigam") in review application No. 36424 of 2020 and in both the review applications, Sri Vijyant Nigam, Advocate appeared for National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (in short "NAFED").

Sri Utsav Misra, learned counsel for the review applicant-petitioner/Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. while pressing the review application No. 32867 of 2020 submitted that the writ petition was filed with regard to payment of seeds supplied by the petitioner- M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. to Nigam pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2009. Total 2681.50 (2144.50+537) quintals seed were supplied by the review applicant-petitioner to the Nigam. It is also stated that while passing the judgment dated 14.02.2020, under review, the Court observed that the review applicant-petitioner is entitled to payment of 2144.50 quintals seed and while observing the same, the Court skipped the letter bearing No. U.P.Seed/3006/05/NAFED/09 of Divisional Head of Nigam dated 28.08.2009 written to Manager (Seeds) NAFED as also observations made by the three Members Committee in its report dated 27.12.2012. According to the letter dated 28.09.2009 and the observation made by the three Members Committee in its report dated 27.12.2012, the petitioner is also entitled for payment of 537 quintals seed supplied to Nigam. The total quantity of the seeds supplied to Nigam was 2681.50 quintals. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to payment of total 2681.50 quintals seed supplied to Nigam. If the judgment is not reviewed taking into consideration the letters dated 28.08.2009 and report dated 27.12.2012, the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also stated that in view of the observations made in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, the petitioner could not approach any other forum for redressal of grievance related to 537 quintals seed. The prayer is to allow the review application.

Learned counsel for the review applicant-petitioner mainly pressed ground Nos. A, B, C and E, which on reproduction read as under:-

"A. Because, while passing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.8117 (M/B) of 2015 (Supra), apparently it skipped consideration of this Hon'ble Court to return a finding with regard to 537 qtls. of seeds supplied by the NAFED to U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam after receiving the same from the Review Applicants pursuant to the purchase order dated 01.06.2009 awarded to the Review Applicant and in furtherance of which a total of 2681.20 qtls. of seeds were supplied by the Review Applicant.

B. Because, while passing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.8117 (M/B) of 2015 (Supra), apparently it skipped consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the Divisional Head of U.P. Beej Nigam vide letter bearing No.U.P.Seed /3006 /05 / NAFED /09 dated 28.08.2009 to the Manager (Seeds) NAFED, had admitted to the fact that 537 qtls seeds supplied by the Review Applicants which were stored at the warehouse of U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam.

C. Because, while passing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.8117 (M/B) of 2015 (Supra), apparently it skipped consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the Manager (ASC), NAFED vide letter bearing No.NAFED/ASC/DL2009 dated 04.09.2009 acknowledged the aforesaid letter dated 28.08.2009 Divisional Head of U.P. Beej Nigam and admitted that 537 qtls. of seeds had been supplied to the Warehouse of U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam.

E. Because, while passing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.8117 (M/B) of 2015 (Supra), apparently it skipped consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the three member committee constituted by the State Government to resolve the issue regarding the payment for supply of seeds by NAFED, during the 2009 Kharif Sowing Season to the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam vide its report dated 27.12.2012, came to a conclusion that the Review Applicant had supplied a total of 2144.50 qtls of seed and with regard to 537 qtls. of seeds, the committee observed that 537 qtls. of seed had been supplied by NAFED to the warehouses of the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam, which has not been denied by U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam. The aforesaid committee further recommended for amicable settlement between the parties."

In review application No. 36424 of 2020 filed by review applicant-Nigam, Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.P. Nag, learned counsel for the Nigam submitted that the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed for the reason that while passing same, the Court did not consider the letter dated 02.07.2019 in its true spirit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. has supplied only 1461.70 quintals seed. It is also stated that the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Writ Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21786 of 2019 and the same was disposed off vide order dated 22.02.2019, which could not be taken note of by this Court while passing the order, under review, dated 14.02.2020. It is also stated that supply of 2144.50 quintals seed was not admitted by review applicant-Nigam. Review applicant-Nigam is not liable for making payment to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and in fact the NAFED is responsible for making payment to petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the judgment holding that the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to payment of 2144.50 quintals seed is liable to be reviewed.

Following main grounds have been pressed by the learned counsel for the Nigam for the purposes of review of judgment and order dated 14.02.2020.

"B. Because while passing judgment & order dated- 14.02.2020 following material points / facts have escaped attention of this Hon'ble Court:

(i) That as per purchase order dated-29.05.2009 issued by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to the NAFED for F O R supply (i.e. rate including transportation till destination) of seeds to the destinations given by the Director Agriculture U.P. & Managing Director U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd., payment against supplied seeds was to be made to NAFED on providing store receipts issued at respective destinations by the officers/ employees as authorized by the Director Agriculture U.P. & Managing Director U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd. respectively.

(ii.) That from the record of the writ petition as well as specific averments in counter affidavit / supplementary counter affidavit it is crystal clear that only supply of 1461.70 qts of seeds by the NAFED / on behalf of NAFED is admitted and rest of the allegedly supplied quantity of seeds is disputed and can not be said to be admitted.

(iii.) That keeping in view the dispute regarding supplied quantity of seeds, the order dated- 07.05.2019 was passed directing all the respondents to resolve the dispute, regarding supplied quantity and consequent payment to NAFED.

(iv.) That from the three member committee report it is clear that said committee conducted its proceedings and submitted report in absence of U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam and without considering fact that payment was to be made to NAFED only against the supplied quantity of seeds for which store receipts are provided. This fact is also clear from the contents in the said report as well. Moreover said three member committee report can not be the basis for direction to the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to make payment specially when in compliance of order dated- 07.05.2019 dispute regarding total supplied quantity of seeds was revisited & resolved in presence of all the parties in meeting dated-27.06.2019 headed by Principal Secretary Agriculture Govt, of U.P. and consequent order dated-02.07.2019 was also issued and total payment for admitted supply of seeds i.e. 1461.70 qts., had already been made by the U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to NAFED, till 19.10.2019.

(v) That in pursuant to order dated- 07.05.2019 under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary Agriculture Govt, of U.P.& in presence of all the respondents / parties, a meeting dated 27.06.2019 was held to resolve dispute regarding total seeds supplied by / on behalf of NAFED and after scrutiny of documents & store receipts against total supplied seeds, it was found that against alleged supply of 2681.50 qts, only 1461.70 qts. (in total) of hybride paddy seeds were actually supplied (i.e. against 864.90 Qts. of alleged supply of Hybrid paddy seeds by the NAFED to the U.P. Agro Industrial corporation Ltd. at different destinations only 768.90 Qts, of seeds were supplied and in the similar manner against alleged supply of 1279.70 Qts. of Hybrid paddy seeds by the NAFED to the different destinations of Directorate of Agriculture U.P. only 692.80 Qts. of seeds were supplied (i.e. total supplied seeds 768.90+692.80=1461.70 qts.).

(vi.) That after resolving dispute regarding total supplied seeds, in compliance of order dated- 07.05.2019, an order dated- 02.07.2019 was also issued at the Govt. level directing all the concern to insure payment of respective balance amount against total admitted quantity of supplied seeds i.e. 1461.70 qts. which is final as none challenged order dated-02.07.2019, in either manner, till date.

(vii.) That keeping in view of fact that as the dispute regarding total supplied quantity of seeds was resolved in compliance of order dated- 07.05.2019 but balance remaining payment against admitted quantity of seeds i.e. 1461.70 qts. was to be made hence this Hon'ble court passed order dated- 13.08.2019. Relevant parts of the order dated- 13.08.2019 are quoted as under;

In para 3 of order dated- 13.08.2019 it is observed : "in deference to our order, affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents......"

In para 6 of order dated- 13.08.2019 it is observed: "It is the common case of the respondent that the petitioners entered into an agreement with NAFED only NAFED can be held responsible.

In para 7 of order dated- 13.08.2019 it is observed : "...In case in hand we are concerned with the power to issue writ in the nature of mandamus and we are required to consider as to under what circumstances the said writ can be considered."

In para 10 & 11 of order dated- 13.08.2019 it is observed; "10. In our view and in view of admitted position it becomes evident that the petitioners have been able to substantiate their legal right to get paid for the seed supplied to the government agencies. It is further evident from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that although respondents are obliged under the law in tune with their public duty to make payment for the material supplied by the petitioners, however the needful is nor being done.

11.... we are conscious of the fact that ordinary the writ court will not interfere in such matters of releasing payment, however the facts and circumstances of this case are peculiar insomuch as the respondents admit that the petitioners have supplied seed, for which payment is required to be made...."

In para 12 & 13 of the order dated- 13.08.2019 is observed;

"12. Considering the fact that the agreement is between the petitioners and NAFED, we deem it just and proper to direct NAFED to resolve its dispute on or before the next date of listing and ensure the amount payable to the petitioners is paid...

13. We further make it clear that in case by the next date of listing payment is not released to petitioners, Managing Director National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED) shall be held responsible and shall be burdened with costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the petitioners. This provision is being made against the NAFED because it is NAFED which had entered into an agreement with the petitioners and it is the NAFED to whom the seed was supplied."

C. Because admittedly till 19.10.2019 U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam paid total payable amount against admitted supplied quantity of seeds i.e. 1461.70 qts to NAFED and it was the NAFED to pay amount to petitioners, which is clear from para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated- 06.11.2019 filed by opp. Parties 3 &4.

D. Because challenging order dated- 13.08.2019, National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED) filed S.L.P. (civil) No- 21786/2019 (National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED) Vs Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd.& ors) before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated- 22.10.2019. E. Because as the admitted quantity of seeds supplied to the destinations is only 1461.70 qts in total (as per store receipts provided by NAFED and scrutinized in its presence in meeting dated- 27.06.2019) and against this quantity, the review applicants had already paid amount to NAFED as such no direction may be issued to review applicants to make payment for 2144.50 qts of seeds as this quantity was never been admitted to review applicants.

F. Because it is the NAFED who had admitted the quantity of seeds allegedly supplied by the petitioners while no such quantity was ever supplied at destinations nor store receipts except for 1461.70 qts. seeds could be provided & produced, hence quantity of seeds except 1461.70 qts. can not be said to be quantity admitted to review applicants.

I. Because in case the NAFED accepts the quantity of 2681.50 qts allegedly seeds supplied by the petitioners to NAFED, then it is NAFED who can be held responsible for making payment, if any, to petitioners not the review applicants / opp. Parties 3& 4. Moreover purchase order dated- 29.05.2009 was issued to NAFED, mentions for supply of total quantity of 2468 qts. hybrid seeds only."

We have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before considering the grounds pressed for the purposes of review of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, we would like to refer the scope of review. The review as per the settled principle by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court is to the effect that the review is not a disguise appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, after taking note of various judgment, summarized the principles related to review of an order/judgment. The relevant paras reads as under:-

"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. This Court in Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 184 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200] held as under: (SCC p. 675, para 1)

"1. Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a rehearing. May be, we were not right in refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."

13. In a criminal proceeding, review is permissible on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 222] , this Court, in paras 8 and 9 held as under: (SCC pp. 171-72)

"8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845] . For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta [(1971) 3 SCC 189 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 279] . The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. District Judge, Delhi [(1971) 3 SCC 5] . Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except ''where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility': Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib[(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 184 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200] .

9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record."

14. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v.Union of India [1980 Supp SCC 562 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 381] held as under: (SCC p. 566, para 12)

"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib[(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 184 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200] this Court observed: (SCC p. 675, para 1)

''1. ... A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.'"

15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held as under: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 7-9)

"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372] this Court opined: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)

''11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.'

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ''reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ''an appeal in disguise'."

16. Error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. This Court, in Lily Thomas v.Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] held as under: (SCC pp. 250-53, paras 54, 56 & 58)

"54. Article 137 empowers this Court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides:

''1.Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.'

Under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. Order 40 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that after an application for review has been disposed of no further application shall be entertained in the same matter.

56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.

58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words ''any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC' must mean ''a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule' as was held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] . Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440] , this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233] , it was held: (AIR p. 244, para 23)

''23. ... [I]t is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? The learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated.

Mr Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, C.J. in--Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality [ILR 1953 Bom 191 : AIR 1953 Bom 133] , that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.'

Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance."

17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court in Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 651] held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 10)

"10. ... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. The learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."

18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)

"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.

12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of ''second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."

19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the principles

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ramv. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

In the instant writ petition, a detailed order was passed on 13.08.2019, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21786 of 2019 and the same was disposed off vide order dated 22.10.2019. The order dated 22.10.2019, on reproduction reads as under:-

"The present special leave petition was filed against an interim oder dated 13.08.2019 directing the petitioner to release the dues of Respondent No.1 for the seeds supplied by them.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad-idem on the issue that during the pendency of the special leave petition, certain payments have been released to the petitioners and which in turn have been paid to Respondent No.1. The payments stated to have been released and paid during the pendency of the special leave petition are as follows :

i) On 17.9.2019, a sum of Rs.26,06,730/- (Rupees twenty six lakhs six thousand seven hundred thirty) was transferred;

ii) On 18.9.2019, a further sum of Rs.56,47,913/- (Rupees fifty six lakhs forty seven thousand nine hundred thirteen) was transferred; and

iii) Yesterday, i.e., on 21.10.2019, a further sum of Rs.76,41,321/- (Rupees seventy six lakhs forty one thousand three hundred twenty one) has been transferred.

All of the aforesaid amounts have been paid to Respondent No.1.

We are not inclined to keep the special leave petition pending as the substantive writ petition is still pending consideration before the High Court.

We leave it to the High Court to examine all other issues. Counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 have submitted that they shall not raise any technical objection with regard to jurisdiction before the High Court.

The special leave petition is disposed of, along with pending applications."

It appears from the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Writ Court, against which the S.L.P. was filed and which was disposed off by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.10.2019 (quoted above), that the writ petition, for the reliefs related to payment of due amount, was entertained and it further appears from the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the order dated 13.08.2019 has not been interfered with. It also appears from the order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that during the pendency of S.L.P. certain amount was released in favour of petitioners before the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. NAFED and in turn the NAFED paid certain amount to petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

It would be appropriate to mention here that as per the term agreed, the Nigam would pay the amount due to NAFED and thereafter NAFED would pay the due amount to petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any payment from Nigam to NAFED, the petitioner would not be get any single penny.

In view of aforesaid and from the order dated 22.10.2019, it appears that during the pendency of S.L.P., the Nigam released some amount in favour of NAFED and thereafter the NAFED released some amount in favour of petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

In addition to above, it also appears form the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 22.10.2019 that the counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have given the undertaking to the effect they shall not raise any technical objection with regard to jurisdiction of High Court.

First we would like to deal with one of the grounds of review, taken by Nigam, which is to the effect that the order dated 22.10.2019 of Hon'ble Apex Court was not taken note of while passing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020.

From the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, it appears that Court skipped in taking note of order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21786 of 2019 filed against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by this Court, whereby in fact writ petition related to payment of due amount was entertained, but the fact remains that the order dated 13.08.2019 was not interfered by Hon'ble Apex Court and as such the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 is not liable to be reviewed on the ground that the order dated 22.10.2019 of Hon'ble Apex Court was not taken note of while passing the judgment dated 14.02.2020.

Other grounds for review pressed by the learned counsel for the respective parties are based on the observations made in the report of three Members Committee submitted vide letter dated 27.12.2012 and letter dated 28.08.2009 as also the letter dated 02.07.2019 and the same are being considered in the following manner.

It borne out from the judgment and order, under review, dated 14.02.2020 that while passing the same, the court considered the report of the three Members Committee of which one of the members was Director of U.P. State Seeds Certificate Agency and the said committee was constituted by the State Government vide order dated 14.09.2012. The committee recommended for payment of 2144.50 quintals seed supplied by the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd (applicant of review application No. 32867 of 2020). The report of three Members Committee, which was submitted vide letter dated 27.12.2012, has also been made part of the judgment, under review, dated 14.02.2020. The operative portion of the report on reproduction reads as under:

"LANGUAGE"

The Court while passing the judgment and order, under review, dated 14.02.2020 also considered the letter dated 02.07.2019. The contents of the letter dated 02.07.2019 also finds place in the judgment and order, under review, dated 14.02.2020.

After considering the conclusion arrived at by the three Members Committee in its report, which was submitted vide letter dated 27.12.2012 as also the contents of the letter dated 02.07.2019, this Court, in the judgment and order, under review, dated 14.02.2020 observed that the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd is entitled to payment of admitted quantity of seeds supplied i.e. 2144.50 quintals. The expression "admitted" in the judgment and order, under review, dated 14.02.2020 has been used after taking note of the fact that the three Members Committee, consisting of Under Secretary, Agriculture, U.P., Additional Commissioner, Housing and Secretary, U.P. Housing Board, who was Chairman of the Committee and Director, U.P. State Seeds Certification Agency, on the basis of the records made available by the parties, reached at conclusion and recommended for payment of 2144.50 quintals seed supplied by petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

For the reasons aforesaid, this court is of the view that the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 is not liable to be reviewed on the basis of observation made by three Members Committee with regard to 537 quintals seed and the facts mentioned in the letters No. U.P.Seed/3006/05/NAFED/09 of Divisional Head of Nigam dated 28.08.2009 written to Manager (Seeds) NAFED as also the letter dated 02.07.2019.

Another ground for review of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 pressed by the learned counsel for the Nigam, relates to the directions issued by this Court. It is in view of the plea that Nigam is not liable to make payment to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and responsibility to make payment to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. lies on NAFED.

Before coming to ground for review related to the direction issued by the Court in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, under review, it would be appropriate to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others; (1995) 6 SCC 749, particularly paragraphs 22 & 23 which on reproduction reads as under:-

"22. The aforesaid has, therefore, to be avoided and I have no doubt that a High Court would be within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment/penalty by moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has, in view of a long line of decisions of this Court, to which reference is not deemed necessary, as the position is well settled in law. It may, however, be stated that this power of moulding relief in cases of the present nature can be invoked by a High Court only when the punishment/penalty awarded shocks the judicial conscience.

23. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh case [Shivdeo Singh v.State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter."

Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar, (2002) 2 SCC 475, particularly paragraph 19 which on reproduction reads as under:-

"19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was satisfied that the respondent was not only to be considered for promotion to the promotional posts, but was also entitled to arrears of pay and allowances since he had been deprived of those benefits not on account of any fault of his but on account of the fault of the authorities concerned. It is well settled that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the court may mould the relief having regard to the facts of the case and interest of justice."

Rajesh Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others; Civil Appeal Nos.2525-2516 of 2013, particularly on paragraphs 12 and 13 which on reproduction read as under:-

"12. We have in the above backdrop heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the impugned orders and other material placed on record. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, argued that the High Court had committed an error in quashing the entire selection process even when the petitioners had not made any prayer to that effect. Mr. Rao was at pains to argue that a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ petitioners could not be granted by the Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and good conscience. Reliance in support of that proposition was placed by him upon Bharat Amritlal Kothari v. Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234 and State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention. The reasons are not far to seek. It is true that the writ petitioners had not impleaded the selected candidates as party respondents to the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayer for the same. The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission but specifically av

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

erred that the "Model Answer Key" which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court directly was whether the "Model Answer Key" was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the "Model Answer Key" to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of 100 questions contained in ''A' series question paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination in so far as the same pertained to ''A' series question paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key. 13. The decisions of this Court in Bharat Amritlal Kothari v. Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234 and State of Orissa & anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, relied upon by Mr. Rao are clearly distinguishable. The power of the Court to mould the relief, according to the demands of the situation, was never the subject matter of dispute in those cases. That power is well- recognised and is available to a writ Court to do complete justice between the parties. The first limb of the argument advanced by Mr. Rao fails and is accordingly rejected." Now coming to directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020. It would be appropriate to mention here that as per the terms agreed between the parties, which include petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd., NAFED and Nigam, so far as it relates to payment of the seed supplied, admittedly after receiving the amount of the seeds supplied from the Nigam, the NAFED is under obligation to pay the amount of the seeds supplied to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Meaning thereby that first Nigam would pay the amount of the seeds supplied by the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. to the NAFED and thereafter NAFED would pay the due amount to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. In this situation, if Nigam does not pay any amount to NAFED then in that event the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. would not get any payment from NAFED. In these circumstances and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as also to do complete justice between the parties, this Court issued directions in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, which are as under:- "For the aforesaid reasons and in the peculiar facts of the case as well as keeping in view observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2019, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the opposite parties particularly the opposite party No.3-U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam to pay the amount for the quantity aforesaid i.e. 2144.50 quintal of seed, as recommended by the three Members Committee, to the Supplier (petitioners) by paying the same to NAFED, after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." In view of aforesaid, the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, in our view, is not liable to be reviewed on the ground that Nigam is not liable to make payment to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and responsibility to make payment to the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. lies on NAFED. With regard to ground of review of judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 taken by the learned counsel for the review applicant-petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd., which is to the effect that in the light of the letter dated 28.08.2009 and report dated 27.12.2012, the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 is liable to be reviewed with respect to 537 quintals seed supplied by the petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. else in view of the observations of this Court in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, the review applicant-petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. would suffer loss and injury. On the ground aforesaid, the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 is not liable to be reviewed as the same is based on the report of three Members Committee and the three Members Committee has not recommended for payment of 537 quintals seed and with regard to 537 quintals seed, we have not made adverse observation in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, which would affect the claim of petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. in case petitioner-M/s Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. approaches before any other forum available to him under the law for releasing the amount related to 537 quintals seed. For the foregoing reasons, both the review applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R