BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this review petition alleging that certain aspects of the case alleged by him have not been considered by the Division Bench and it has finally decided the case.
(2.) EARLIER the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of this bench hearing this review petition singly. That objection was overruled by the order dated 31.3.2000. Hence, this review petition was heard by me sitting singly because the other Hon'ble Judge continuing the bench Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Shivaraj v. Patil, as he then was, was not available for hearing. The petitioner in the review petition has argued that he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Arvind Dattatraya Dhanda v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 S.C.C. (L and S) 1437 and he has also relied upon the decisions of Section Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (1966)ILLJ458SC and Express News Papers v. U.O.I. : AIR1986SC872 . These cases were not discussed by the Division Bench in detail in its judgment. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that the Division Bench has not called for the record which was before the Tribunal and, therefore, the full facts were not before it and in the absence of those facts, the writ petition has been decided. The writ petition filed by Mr. Mathur was not maintainable because before the Tribunal he has not filed reply and contested the case.
(3.) THE petitioner has also submitted that the conduct of Mr. Mathur tantamounts to fraud and any judgment obtained by fraud cannot be sustained.;