Supreme Court of India
DELHI PRADESH REGD. MED. PRT. ASSN.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 201
- Decided
- 11 March 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as frivolous; the absence of counsel does not constitute a ground for review.
Summary
The Delhi Pradesh Regulated Medical Practitioners Association filed a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging a judgment that dismissed its claim to practice medicine on the basis of qualifications awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The sole ground advanced was that the Association's counsel was absent during the hearing of related appeals, allegedly violating principles of natural justice. The Court examined whether such an absence could constitute a valid ground for review and considered precedents on the permissibility of filing review petitions after changing counsel. Finding no substantive error of law or fact in the impugned judgment and deeming the petition a mere technical objection, the Court held that entertaining the review would be a futile exercise and an abuse of judicial resources. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as frivolous.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of counsel at the hearing of related appeals amounts to a violation of natural justice sufficient to entertain a review petition.
- Whether a party may file a review petition after changing counsel, in light of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board case.
- Whether the review petition raised any substantive error of law or fact in the impugned judgment.
- Whether the review petition constitutes an abuse of the court's process and should be dismissed as frivolous.
Legislation cited
Subjects
review petitionnatural justiceabsence of counselfrivolous petitionpractice of medicinequalification requirementsArticle 19(1)(g)Article 19(6)Article 14abuse of process
Judgment
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 849
DELHI PRADESH REGO. MED. PRT. ASSN. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Review Petition (Civil) No. 2279 of 201 O
In
Civil Appeal No. 4757 of 2010 B
MARCH 11, 2011
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Review petition: Maintainability of - Petitioner seeking C
review of impugned judgment on the ground that when the
matter was heard, petitioner's counsel was not present and
therefore judgment rendered against the petitioner was in
- flagrant violation of principles of natural justice - Held: Review
petition cannot be argued merely on technicalities - On facts, D
entertaining the review petition was not only a futile exercise
but sheer wastage of judicial time - Petitioner did not disclose
anywhere as to whether any grievance was ever raised by it
against the counsel who remained negligent and did not
render any service to it - Courts are over burdened and no E
litigant should misuse the forum of the court merely because
litigation is a luxury for him - The review petition' was filed on
frivolous grounds as neither in the petition, nor during the
course of hearing, the error/mistake in the judgment either on
law or on facts was pointed out - Review application was filed F
without any sense of responsibility - Such a practice adopted
by the litigants and the members of the Bar is deprecated -
Review petition accordingly dismissed.
Dr. Buddhi Kota ·Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors. AIR
1996 SC 2687 - relied on. G
Rajasthan Pradesh V. S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2221; R.D. Saxena v. Bairam Prasad
Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264; C. S. Venkatasubramanian v.
~9 H
. 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.
A State Bank of India (1997) 1 SCC 254 - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE:
AIR 2010 SC 2221 Referred to Para 3
B (2000) 1 sec 264 Referred to Para 5
(1997) 1 sec 254 Referred to Para 5
AIR 1996 SC 2687 Relied on Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C)
c No. 2279 of 2010.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 4757 of 2010 etc.
D From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2008 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 1999 of 1998
Fakhruddin, Raj Kishore Choudhary, Bharat Bhushan,
Shamant Ahuja, Meenu Sharma, Neeru Sharma Chitranjali
E Negi, Gulshan Jahan, Shivam Sharma, T. Mahipal for the
appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
F
1. This Review Petition has been preferred by the
applicant on the ground that when the matter was heard, its
counsel was not present and therefore, the judgment has been
rendered against the applicant in flagrant violation of the
G principles of natural justice and this Court must entertain the
Review Petition recalling its judgment and order impugned
herein and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the applicant.
2. In fact, this case has arisen out of the judgment and
H
DELHI PRADESH REGO. MED. PRT. ASSN. v. UNION 851
OF INDIA & ORS.
order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Delhi High Court dismissing A
the Writ Petition No.1999 of 1998 rejecting the claim of the
applicant and its members that they are entitled to practice in
the field of Medical Sciences on the basis of the qualification
of Ayurveda Rattan & Vaid Visharad awarded by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammellan, Allahaoad. B
3. The appeal of the applicant came for hearing alongwith
a bunch of matters, i.e., Civil Appeal Nos.5324 of 2007; 5325
of 2007; 4758 of 2010; and 4759 of 2010, wherein the similar
issues were involved. The matter had been argued at length
by a large number of advocates in the other appeals and all C
the appeals were dismissed by an elaborate impugned
judgment and order dated 1.6.2010, i.e. Rajasthan Pradesh
V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010
SC 2221, wherein this Court reached the following
conclusions:- D
(i) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/
Deemed University nor an Educational Board.
(ii) It is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act. E
(iii) It is not an educational institution imparting
education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda
or any other branch of medical science.
F
(iv) No school/college imparting education in any
subject is affiliated to it. Nor is the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan affiliated to any University/Board.
(v) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition
from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt G
has ever been made by the Society to get
recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act,
1970, and further did not seek modification of entry
No.105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.
A (vi) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts
examinations without verifying as to whether the
candidate has some elementary/basic education or
has attended classes in Ayurveda in any
recognized college.
8 (vii) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not
possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule
II, Ill & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.
(viii) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State
c Register maintained under the State Act is not
enough to make him eligible to practice.
(ix) The right to practice under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution is not absolute, and thus, is subject to
reasonable restrictions as provided under Article
0
19(6) of the Constitution.
(x) Restriction on the right to practice without
possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in
Schedule II, Ill & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative
E of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions
of the State Act.
4. When the Review Petition of the applicant came before
the Court by circulation on 27.1.2011, the Court passed the
F following order:-
"lt may be desirable that before we entertain/ consider the
review petition, the learned counsel for the applicant may
explain as to whether the advocate, other than the
Advocate-on-Record at the time of the disposal of the
G case, can file a review petition in the light of the judgment
reported in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. vs. N.
Raju Reddiar & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1005; and further
when the Court has heard a bunch of petitions, and
disposed them all by a common judgment, whether review
H
DELHI PRADESH REGO. MED. PRT. ASSN. v. UNION 853
OF INDIA & ORS.
by the parties in one of the case can be filed on the ground A
that its lawyer could not make submissions.
List after two weeks."
5. The applicant filed a reply to the same contending that
8
the aforesaid judgment referred to by this Court in Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board & Anr. (supra) has no application in this case
for the reason that litigant is free to change his advocate when
he feels that the advocate retained cannot espouse his cause
efficiently or for any other reason and to substantiate its case, C
the applicant relied upon the judgments of this Court in R.D.
Saxena v. Bairam Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264; and
C.S. Venkatasubramanian v. State Bank of India, (1997) 1
I
SCC 254. It has further been submitted that a party is free to
retain any advocate if it feels that its erstwhile advocate has
not contested the case efficiently and effectively, and it was D
wrong to dismiss the petition in absence of its counsel. It has
further been submitted in response to our earlier order as
under:-
"That 1t is respectfully submitted that the review petitions E
were filed in all the appeals which were disposed of on
21.10.2010 by this Hon'ble Court passed in Review
Petition (C) No.1741/2010, Review Petition (C) No.17421
2010, Review Petition (C) No.1743/2010 & Review
Petition (C) No.1744/2010" F
6. In view of the submissions made herein we thought it ·
proper to hear the learned counsel of the applicant in open
Court and thus, the matter came today for hearing. ·
7. Shri Fakhruddin, learned Senior Advocate appearing for G
•the applicant was explained that though the counsel for the
-applicant was not present when other connected appeals were ·
•heard and decided, he may point out as what is the material in
lhis possession to show that any of the findings recorded by us
.and quoted hereinabove is factually incorrect. Shri Fakhruddin H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.
A could not point out any material on the basis of which any of
the findings so recorded can be held to be worth
reconsideration. Not a single member of the applicant's
Association has filed any document to show as what was the
minimum qualification to join the course; what was its duration;
B where such members have completed their course and training;
and when they passed the examination and what were the
marks secured by them.
8. In fact, as nothing has been argued before us today in
C support of the review petition and it has been submitted by Shri
Fakhruddin, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant
that as the matter stands squarely covered by the judgment of
this Court in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar (supra),
he has nothing to add. The review petition cannot be argued
merely on technicalities that applicant's counsel remained
0
absent on the day the connected matters involving same
questions of fact and law had been argued and decided. Thus,
Shri Fakhruddin has fairly conceded that the review petition is
nothing, but purely an academic exercise as nothing can be
argued against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.2010.
E
9. As is evident from the above that entertaining the review
petition is proved not only a futile exercise but sheer wastage
of judicial time. Applicant has not disclosed anywhere as to-
whether any grievance has ever been raised by it against the-
F counsel who remained negligent and did not render any service•
to it. Reply to our first order dated 27.1.2011 has been filecl
urging that Court is bound to give way to the entitlements 0111
litigants. We are of the considered opinion that such conducil
of the litigant has not only been reprehensible but is tantamoun•
G to abuse of the process of the court. We are not able tc
appreciate as to whether the petitioh was filed to satisfy the egc
of the litigant or the litigant was ill-advised by the members o•
the Bar just for petty pecuniary gain. The petition has been filec
without realizing that the courts are over burdened and nc
H litigant should mis-use the forum of the court merely becausai
DELHI PRADESH REGO. MED. PRT. ASSN. v. UNION 855
OF INDIA & ORS.
litigation is a luxury for him. The review application has been A
filed on frivolous grounds as neither in the petition, nor during
the course of hearing could the error/mistake in the judgment
either on law or on facts be pointed out.
10. In Dr. Buddhi Kofa Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors., B
AIR 1996 SC 2687, this Court has observed as under:
"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court
time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in
the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should
not be misused as a license to file misconceived and C
frivolous petitions."
11. In view of the above, we are of the view that the review
application has been filed without any sense of responsibility.
We do not find appropriate words to deprecate such a practice o
adopted by the litigants and the members of the Bar. Grounds
taken in the application are preposterous. The review petition
hopelessly lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
D.G. Review Petition dimissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "review petition"Sign in to search