Review Petition cannot be treated as second opportunity to argue matters already Adjudicated: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition with a cost of Rs 30,000 on a plea by a school student against the new fee structure introduced by a CBSE affiliated school in Ghaziabad.
The bench led by Justice Prateek Jalan had earlier dismissed the petition observing that “the mere presence of the CBSE as a respondent in the petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.” The Court had further granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for the same relief.
Thereafter the child's father filed a review petition where he argued that the question of territorial jurisdiction, although noted in the first order of the Court dated May 27, 2019, was not reiterated in the further orders starting with the order dated August 27, 2019.
The Court however clarified that the order dated May 27, 2019 noted the issue of territorial jurisdiction and specifically recorded that all issues, including the issue of territorial jurisdiction, remain open. None of the subsequent orders decided the issue in favour of the petitioner.
Mr Singh also argued that the judgment under review is in error in holding that the ground upon which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, is 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. In support of this contention, he submitted that the byelaws, regulations etc., framed by the CBSE were framed at its head office in New Delhi.
The Court however observed that the arguments raised by Mr. Singh displayed an attempt to reagitate issues which had already been decided in the judgment under review.
The Court said "Such a course cannot be permitted. A review petition cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue matters which have already been adjudicated".
The Court further noted that the petitioner was not remediless as far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, as she had been expressly granted liberty to agitate her grievances before the appropriate court, if she is so advised.
Observing that the the filing of the review petition was utterly misconceived, and the arguments meritless, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 30,000 to be deposited within a period of 4 weeks with the Delhi Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: Riddhima Singh (Minor) Through her Father Shailendra Singh vs Central Board of Secondary Education