- (1.) This review application has been made by the applicants, the petitioners in the writ petition, seeking review of the judgement and order dated 31st January, 2012, basically for two reasons: firstly, admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners in respect of the enquiry by the enquiry committee, which fact has escaped from the notice of the Court in coming to conclusion and the Court has held that opportunity was given to the petitioners to associate with the enquiry; and secondly, there was no statement on the part of the petitioners that the period of contract has been extended for one year more after the expiry of the period of contract but is extendable for one year, however, due to order of blacklisting the period of contract was not extended by the respondents.
(2.) Before entering into the grounds of review, we want to make it clear that there should be a discipline in drafting of review application/s because it is normally placed before the Court which has passed the original order but not before any appellate Court. Therefore, the review application is to be made with descent and guarded words like "escaped from the notice" etc. and not with harsh words like "erred in holding" or "manifestly erred in holding" or "failed to appreciate" etc., which are normally used in the case of appeal from one Court to its superior Court. Necessity of making the review application is not to embarrass a Judge in person forgetting his rigour and magnanimity but to address the chair, which has passed the original order, to re-apprise the fact and law. Therefore, an application for review can be pursued by eloquence and not by the words of war. Hence, instead of putting any cost for such type of drafting, we warn the petitioners to be careful in future.
(3.) Let a copy of the aforesaid observations be also circulated by the Registrar General of this Court amongst the Bar to be careful in making review applications in each and every Court of justice for all time to come.;