A.B.Srivastava - (1.) THE applicant, respondent in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8576 of 1982 by means of the Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 56183 of 1995, has in effect sought review of the judgment dated 30.11.1994, rendered by this court. In the writ petition, the petitioner in whose favour allotment of a building was made by the R. C. and E. O., had sought quashing of an order of the revisional court, whereby the said allotment was set aside. THE writ petition was allowed by this court, setting aside the Impugned order of the revisional court, directing it to decide the rent control revisions on merit in accordance with law expeditiously.
(2.) THE applicant has sought, what he calls, rectification of the judgment and order dated 30.11.1994, by deleting the following sentence occurring in the 4th paragraph of the judgment:- "As far as the declaration of vacancy by order dated 29.2.1980 passed by the R. C. and E. O. is concerned, the same having not been challenged, by means of any writ petition, has become final." Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the submissions made at the bar in the light of the facts on record, this court is of the view that there being neither any error of fact, nor of law, there does not arise any cause to review the judgment or to delete any part of the observation therein. The law is very clear that review proceedings are not akin to appeal or revision, and only a mistake or error apparent on record, can be corrected. Contentious questions of fact or law cannot be dilated upon to invoke the review jurisdiction. See Sow. Chandra Kanta and another v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 ; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Limited v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 ; Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, JT 1994 (7) SC 536.
(3.) REVERTING to the facts of this case, the observation aforesaid in the judgment sought to be deleted, admittedly records a correct state of facts and also of law, that the order declaring vacancy not having been challenged by means of any writ petition, the same has become final. To say that this observation is incorrect in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Tirlok Singh and Company v. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others, 1976 UPRCE 138 will be to negate the law enunciated by the Apex Court In Ganpat Roy and others v. Additional District Magistrate and others, ARC 1985 (2) 73. The declaration of the law by the Supreme Court in Ganpat Roy's case cannot be said to be prospective. To allow such prayer and permit the revisional court to decide the question of validity of the order declaring vacancy, will amount to arming the said court with powers which it does not possess under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as laid down in para 13 in Ganpat Roy's case (supra). For these above reasons, therefore, the application of the respondent deserves to be, and is hereby dismissed. The interim order is withdrawn and the learned revisional court is directed to dispose of the revisions pending before him expeditiously, say within two months from the date a certified copy of the said order becomes available.;