- (1.) THIS review application has been filed for review of the order dated 8.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 for expunction of remarks made therein that the petitioner had filed second writ application concealing the fact that he had moved an application earlier.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner, a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, had been given grant in aid for the period 1997-98 in the year 2000 by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. For the subsequent year, when grant in aid was not given for the reason that some dispute had been raised by one Dr.Durga Bhagat, the petitioner filed a writ application, vide C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000. While the matter was pending, petitioner-society came to know that grant in aid has been given to other Societies but it has been denied to the petitioner-society, the petitioner filed another writ application, vide W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001. That writ application was taken for hearing on 12.10.2001, on which date it was disposed of after holding that no person has any right to have aid from the State till specific policy decision is framed by the competent authority. However, liberty was granted to raise the issue of discrimination before the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi so that claim of the petitioner be decided by a reasoned order. After disposal of that writ application, C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 which had been filed earlier was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 8.3.2002. During course of hearing, respondents raised preliminary objection to the effect that the society had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (C) No.5228 of 2001 for the same relief. Thereupon the court having taken notice of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 dismissed the writ application after holding that the court had earlier disallowed the relief sought for. Almost nine years of passing of the order this review application was filed for review of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3618 of 2000. Mr.Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ application bearing C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 has been rejected simply for the reason that the petitioner had concealed the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed writ application, bearing W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 and thereby the Court committed apparent error in dismissing the writ application as the petitioner could not have made statement in the writ application, bearing C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 that he had also moved to this Court for the same relief in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 as C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 had been filed at earlier point of time.
(3.) IT was further submitted that since C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 had been rejected for the reason stated above, representation filed by the petitioner-society, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 was rejected, though the authority also assigned other grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner to have grant in aid in his favour and that has necessitated filing of the review application.;