M/S. SURESH CHANDRA KHANDELWAL AND CO.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

A              M/S. SURESH CHANDRA KHANDEL WAL AND CO.
                                   v.
                         STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

                                NOVEMBER 20, 2006

B           [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]


          Remedy-In LPA, appellant seeking permission of High Court to place
    reliance on decision rendered in another writ petition-High Court disposing
C   of LPA observing that matter may be agitated in review-Review dismissed
    as not permissible-Appeal on the plea that appellant left without remedy--
    Held: Plea has substance-It is appropriate for High Court to hear the LPA
    and dispose of on merits.
                                                                                      . ...
          Appellant filed writ petition before High Court for seeking certain
D   benefits, which was dismissed. Appellant preferred LPA seeking permission
    of Court to place reliance on decision rendered in another writ petition.
    Division Bench disposed of LPA observing that the same can be agitated in a
    review petition. Accordingly review petition was filed which was also dismissed
    as not permissible.

E        In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that it was left without
    remedy.

          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: The plea of the appellant that it was being left without a remedy
F   has substance. The Division Bench declined to interfere in the matter holding
    that the grievance could be looked into in a review petition. Single Judge
    observed that the review petition was not maintainable. In the peculiar
    circumstances, the order of the Single Judge is set aside. It would be
    appropriate for the Division Bench to hear the LPA and dispose of on merits
G   in accordance with law. (176-D-Fl

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5075 of2006.

          From the Judgments and Orders dated 7-1-2004,17-12-2004 and 8-9-2005
    of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Writ Petition

                                         174
 SURE SH CHANDRA KHANDEL WAL & CO. v. ST ATE OF M.P. [PASAYA T, J.] 175

 No. 67/1997, M.C.C. No. 461/2004 and LP.A. No. 149/2005 respectively.                A
       Sushil Kr. Jain, Ajit Chhabra, Punit Jain, Sarad Singhania and Pratibha
 Jain for the appellant.

       B.S. Banthia for the Respondents.
                                                                                      B
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single
 Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the                 C
 review petition filed by the appellant.

       Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

         Appellant had claimed benefit available under the compounding method
. in payment of entertainment duty under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh         D
  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           E
  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       F
  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:
                                                                                      G
         "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
         record, we are of the opinion that if according to tt.e 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          H
    176                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A              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 of2004. The same was dismissed by the impugned
    order holding that review was not permissible. It was noted that in any event
B   the decision on which reliance was placed by the appellant was not in the
    nature of a binding precedent.

          Learned 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
C   Single Judge held that review petition was not maintainable. Consequentially,
    the appellant was left without a remedy.

          Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that
    the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the review petition was not
D   maintainable.

           We 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
E   maintainable.

          In the 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. l 06 of 2004. The same shall be heard and disposed of on merits in
    accordance with law.
F
             The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to
    costs.

    D.G..                                                   Appeal partly allowed.