In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Review Petition No. 325 of 2014
In Re: Writ Petition No 2008 (M/B) of
2014
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others Respondents
Index
|
S No
|
Description of documents relied upon
|
|
Page No
|
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
1.
|
List of Dates and Events (separate)
|
Separate
|
|
|
2.
|
Memo of Review Petition
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Copy of judgement and order dated
10/03/2014 passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. ,
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadyaya, J. in Writ Petition No.- 2008 (M/B) of 2014
|
|
|
Lucknow (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Review Petition No. 325 of 2014
In Re: Writ Petition No 2008 (M/B) of
2014
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others Respondents
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
S No Date Event
1. 06/03/2014 Writ
Petitioner No 2008 (M/B) of
2014 filed by the petitioner
2014 filed by the petitioner
2. 10/03/2014 Impugned
judgement and order passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,
J. and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
J. and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya,
J. in the aforesaid Writ
Petition whereby this Writ Petition
has been dismissed on ground and
Petition whereby this Writ Petition
has been dismissed on ground and
reasoning
which seem to need a
review to be done, because
of reasons being explained in the
accompanied Review Petition
review to be done, because
of reasons being explained in the
accompanied Review Petition
Hence this review
petition
Lucknow (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Review Petition No. 325 of 2014
In Re: Writ petition No- 2008 of 2014 (M/B) (PIL-Civil)
1. Amitabh
Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow
2. Dr Nutan
Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-------- Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Reserve Bank of India
through Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai
3. Securities
and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman, 'G' Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400051
4. Central Registrar, Multi State Cooperative Societies, Government of
India, c/o Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
5.
Sahara India
Parivar, Sahara India Center, 2, Kapoorthala
Comlex, Aliganj, Lucknow
6.
Sahara
Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Complex, 1, Kapoorthala
Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
-------
Respondents
Review Petition
against the judgement and order dated 10/03/2014 passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz
Murtaza, J. and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya J. in Writ Petition No.- 2008 (M/B) of
2014
The petitioner, named above, most respectfully
prefers the instant review petition on the following amongst other grounds-
Grounds
1.
Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma
vs Mayawati & others, reported in JT 2013 (12) SC 155 has summarized the
principles for exercising the jurisdiction of review saying-“16) Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) 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”
2.
Because the words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted by the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 and Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8)SC 275.
3.
Because in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki (Supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court said-“The three cases in which alone mere review is permitted are those of new
material overlooked by excusable misfortune, mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record, or "any other sufficient reason." The first two
alternatives do not apply in the present case, and the expression
"sufficient," if this were all, would naturally be read as meaning
sufficiency of a kind analogous to the two already specified, that is to say,
to excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new and important
matters, or error on the face of the record” so as to conclude-“ So construing
it they interpret the words "any other sufficient reason" as meaning
a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified
immediately previously “
4.
Because the order dated 10/03/2014 needs a review for “any other
sufficient reason at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”.
5.
Because this Hon’ble Court dismissed the
Writ Petition by saying that during the course of arguments, the petitioner No
1 stated that he did not want to argue this matter any further before the given
Bench, which was reiterated by petitioner no.2
6. Because the petitioners have fully realized that they were at complete
fault at having stopped their arguments mid way in this matter and have fully
understood that they should have continued their arguments before this Hon’ble
Court and should have made all possible endeavours to satisfy all the queries
presented/posed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and for the
larger public interest involved in the matter. They fully accept their fault of
having stopped midway in their arguments in this matter of extreme public importance
where the interest of millions of investors is at stakes. Hence the petitioners
tender their unconditional apology for having stopped midway in this matter
related with millions of poor and ordinary investors whose life-time savings
have the risk of getting jeopardized because of the dismissal of this Petition.
They state in
unequivocal words that they shall now present their complete case before this
Hon’ble Court to the best of their abilities so as to satisfy the queries of
this Hon’ble Court in this matter of extreme public importance. It was a
complete mistake on the part of the petitioners to have stopped midway in their
arguments without thinking even for once that they were not presenting a
personal case where only their own interests were concerned but were actually
arguing a matter where interests of millions of poor and ordinary investors is
at heavy stakes because of the alleged improprieties being conducted by respondents
No 5 and 6, Sahara India Parivar and Sahara Credit
Cooperative Society Limited and hence they had no right to play with the
interests of these millions of investors as it got dismissed merely because of
stopping the arguments midway. Hence the petitioners feel truly ashamed of
themselves of having forgotten the interests of these millions of investors while
arguing their matter before this Hon’ble Court in this Public Interest
Litigation and thus having brought a situation where this PIL got dismissed
7. Because
the petitioners, who had previously forgotten the mighty responsibility on
their shoulders of pursuing the interests of millions of investors, pray with
utmost humbleness that this Hon’ble Court, being the epitome of justice and
virtuousness, be kind enough to review its order and recall it, thereby giving
the petitioners another opportunity to pursue the matter which is not related
with the petitioners personally but is related with millions of poor and
helpless investors whose interests this Hon’ble Court is never going to leave
in lurch
8.
Because hence whatever happened
on the first date of hearing because of petitioner No 1 and 2 may kindly be
forgiven by this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court may kindly permit them
another opportunity to present their case and to make an endeavour to answer all possible queries by this Hon’ble Court on this issue so that
this Hon’ble Court finally provides justice to all these investors.
9.
Because this is a reason sufficient in itself for the Hon’ble Court to take up the matter, review and recall its order and
to issue suitable directions and orders in this case
Prayer
Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased-
1. to allow the review petition thereby recalling this Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 10/03/2014 in this Writ Petition No 2008 of 2014 (M/B) and
to permit the petitioners to present their case afresh before this Hon’ble
Court so that this Hon’ble Court may accordingly deliver justice as per the
facts emerging through this subsequent hearing
2. to make any other order as it deems fit, in
the Interest of Justice.
Lucknow (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
Dated- 22/03/2014 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34525
No comments:
Post a Comment