- (1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's writ petition being CWJC No. 1704 of 2000R was allowed by the learned Single Judge. However, the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th August, 2003 was set aside in L.P.A. No. 591 of 2003 . Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench passed in L.P No. 591 of 2003 dated 22.2.2005, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 10042 of 2005, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10th May, 2005. Then the petitioner preferred Civil Review Petition No. 1263 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for review of the order passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10042 of 2005, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28th July, 2005. Not satisfied with this, the petitioner submitted a Curative Petition (Civil) No. 33 of 2006 in a review petition arising out of the S.L.P. referred above, which, too, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28th November, 2006.
(2.) THEN on 8th July, 2011 i.e., after more than four years of dismissal of curative petition, this Review petition has been filed. Office has raised objection that in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, Civil Review and Curative Petition, this review petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & ors. Vrs. Government of A.P. & Ors. reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 221 and submitted that if fraud is committed upon the Court then entire proceeding and order stands vitiated and such fraud can be proved before any Court at any time.
(3.) WITHOUT entering into any controversy and without deciding this issue, we have examined the plea of the review petitioner and found that documents, which the petitioner wants to show, of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was duly considered by the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge clearly held that petitioner "obtained" that letter of acceptance of voluntary retirement and it was not , in fact, "served" upon the writ petitioner. However, for other reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the Division Bench considered all the facts and circumstances, including the letter in question, and thereafter, held that the petitioner's voluntary retirement was never accepted. In view of the above reasons, it appears that the petitioner wants to reopen all questions of fact, which were decided by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition and it is not a case where we can reach to the conclusion that there is some element of fraud proved from the facts of the case. Therefore, no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court, in the above facts and circumstances of the case.;