Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of AYUSH) / Director, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy / Assistant Director in Charge, Central Research Institute for Homoeopathy, S. Puram, Kottayam, Kerala v. Aswathy Elsa Mathew

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 1031 of 2007() --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.2843/2000 Dated 04/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH RED CROSS BHAVAN ANNEXE, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMOEOPATHY,61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, OPPOSITE D BLOCK, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-58. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR HOMOEOPATHY S.PURAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.A.SAMEER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ ASWATHY ELSA MATHEW, LAB TECHNICIAN, CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR HOMOEOPATHY S.PURAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. M/S.S.RAMESH & ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.** ========================= R.P.No.1031 of 2007 in O.P.NO.2843 of 2000 ========================= Dated this the 16[th] day of January, 2008. ## **ORDER** ## **“CR”** This is an application for review of judgment passed on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Two issues have been placed for consideration. First is regarding the maintainability of the application for review, the objection being that the same is out of time and the provision invoked is not the appropriate one. The second is as to the merits of the review petition on the basis of the contentions of the rival parties. 2. I shall first deal with the question of maintainability. The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. In **Puran Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 1092)** RP1031/2007 -:2:- rendered after the insertion of the Explanation to Section 141 CPC, by the amendment of 1976, it has been held that when the Constitution has vested extraordinary power in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, the procedures for exercising such power and jurisdiction have to be traced and found in those provisions themselves. After noticing that no useful purpose will be served by limiting the power of the High Court by the procedural provisions prescribed in CPC, it was held that the provisions and procedures prescribed under CPC can be taken as guide on many questions, while exercising power in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it has to be understood that while the principles underlining the CPC can be taken as guiding beacons in the exercise of authority under Articles 226 and 227 as part of the justice delivery system, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not confined or controlled by the provisions of the CPC. The power to review its judgments, orders or directions issued under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part RP1031/2007 ## -:3:- and parcel of the constitutional powers of the High Court, referable to those articles and is available under those constitutional provisions themselves and would not be regulated by the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, an application for review of a judgment, writ, direction or order issued in writ jurisdiction would not stand regulated by the provisions relating to review in the CPC. 3. In **Divisional Forest Officer v. Cherian (1982 K.L.T. 682)** this Court laid down that the High Court can review an order and correct an error committed by it to meet the ends of justice. This is available within the wide sweep of the High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In **Kokers 70 MM Movie House v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1984 K.L.T. 529)** , it has been clearly noticed that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ court has the power to correct errors and omissions rendered in proceedings in exercise of RP1031/2007 -:4:- powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to writ proceedings. However, when a person does not approach the court within a reasonable framework of time, he is duty bound to disclose and explain to the satisfaction of the Court, as to why he had not approached earlier. This is because, delay itself is a ground on which the exercise of discretion by the writ court would depend, be it exercising authority for the first time on a particular case, or on an application for review of an order already rendered. The writ court need not necessarily come to the aid of the litigant. While an application to condone the delay and an application for review within the format of the provisions of the CPC and the Limitation Act may not be necessary, an application for review of an order passed under Articles 226 or 227 filed after a long delay of time, say more than the normal period fixed for similar purposes by the Limitation RP1031/2007 ## -:5:- Act, it is not only appropriate, but necessary, that reasons are disclosed, establishing sufficient cause for the delay. In the normal course, a writ petition has to be filed within a period of 90 days. It is appropriate that an application for review of an order passed in a writ proceedings has to be filed within a further period of 30 days, subject to exceptions as could be claimed on principles of justice. Inordinate delay thereafter has to be explained to the satisfaction of the court. But, this does not mean that there should be a separate application to condone the delay or an application for review in the form prescribed by the CPC. The issue as to the maintainability of the application for review is answered accordingly. 5. On to the merits: The plea raised seeking review is that the Central Council of Homeopathy is an autonomous body to which the Rules applicable to the employees of the Central Government are not automatically RP1031/2007 -:6:- extended and that their service conditions are governed by resolutions made by the governing body of the Council. It is pointed out in the review petition that the writ petitioner has already been extended all the benefits available to the employees of the Council in accordance with the Rules and her claims to be put on par with that of the Central Government employees cannot be accepted. These grounds, it is alleged, were not noticed by this Court since the review petitioners were not represented at the hearing of the writ petition. A reading of paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed would categorically show that the anomaly pointed out by the writ petitioner as referable to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, was obviously not explained in as much as it was not disputed in the statement filed by the respondents, the review petitioners. The employer requested the ministry to reconsider the proposal, to remove the anomaly and accord sanction for implementation of the pay scale of RP1031/2007 -:7:- Rs.4,500-125-7000 for laboratory technicians of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy. Such entitlement for revision was not refused by the ministry. Nor was it disputed before this Court. All that was stated is that promotions to the scale of pay of Rs.4,000-7,000 were granted to the writ petitioner with effect from 1-1-1997. This obviously means that the refusal of such scale from 1- 1-1996 was not sustainable on any rational ground. It was accordingly that Relief No.1 was granted. Patient care allowance in terms of Ext.P2 order was directed to be paid in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was working in a hospital with 50 beds. Similarly, the direction regarding additional charge allowance for the post of bio-chemist was issued on the specific grounds and reasons, which are stated in paragraph 6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. The contentions of the review petitioners/respondents in the writ petition were adverted to and considered and the judgment sought to be reviewed RP1031/2007 ## -:8:- has been issued stating reasons for the same. I do not find any error apparent on the face of that judgment and therefore there is no ground to review it. In the result, this review review petition is dismissed. **Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.** sl.