Suresh Chandra Khandelwal & Co. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors  Insc 823
(20 November 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) Nos. 26402-404 of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the review petition filed by the
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
had claimed benefit available under the compounding method in payment of
entertainment duty under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment
Duties (Advertisement Tax) Act, 1936 (in short the 'Act'). Prayer was sought
for to accord the benefit with effect from 1.4.1996 in place of 1.1.1997 as was
granted. It was pleaded that though the benefit was granted by order dated
20.12.1996 rightly, it was not proper to confine it for the period from
1.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 instead of from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997. The writ petition
was dismissed on the ground that no effective relief can be granted to the writ
petitioner in 2003-04 in respect of a dispute which related to the year
1996-97. The order dated 7.1.2004 passed in writ petition No.67/97 was assailed
by filing a Letters Patent Appeal. According to the appellant, the filing of
the LPA was necessitated because the writ petitioner had sought permission of
the Court to place reliance on the decision rendered in another Writ Petition
(MP No. 3398 of 1992) dated 21.11.2000. By order dated 26.2.2002, learned
Single Judge directed that the matter shall be listed, so it can be taken note
of at the time of final hearing. Contrary to the order, learned Single Judge
did not take note of the order passed in a similar case. The Letters Patent
Appeal was disposed of inter alia with the following observations:
heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we are
of the opinion that if according to the appellant, the question posed in the
appellant's writ petition stood answered by a judgment pronounced by another
Single Judge and also keeping in mind that the said judgment has neither been
referred to nor considered, then it would be a fit case where appellant should
apply for review of the said order so as to specifically bring it to the notice
of the learned Single Judge and then to advance arguments." Accordingly,
the review petition was filed on 16.8.2004 which was numbered as MCC No. 461 of
2004. The same was dismissed by the impugned order holding that review was not
permissible. It was noted that in any event the decision on which reliance was
placed by the appellant was not in the nature of a binding precedent.
counsel for the appellant submitted that the LPA filed was not decided, because
the Division Bench felt that the same can be agitated in a review petition.
Contrary to what was stated by the Division Bench, learned Single Judge held
that review petition was not maintainable. Consequentially, the appellant was
left without a remedy.
counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the learned Single
Judge has rightly held that the review petition was not maintainable.
find substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that it was
being left without a remedy. The Division Bench declined to interfere in the
matter holding that the grievance could be looked into in a review petition.
Learned Single Judge observed that the review petition was not maintainable.
peculiar circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It
would be appropriate for the Division Bench to hear the LPA No. 106 of 2004.
The same shall be heard and disposed of on merits in accordance with law.
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.