Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA NO.3318 OF 2013 WITH WP NO.794 OF 2010 JAYDEEP MAJUMDAR Versus WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.& ORS.………… GA NO.3319 OF 2013 WITH WP NO.794 OF 2010 JAYDEEP MAJUMDAR Versus WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.& ORS.………… BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 13th December, 2013.
Mr.A.Banerjee…appeaRs.Mr.L.K.
Gupta, senior advocate, Mr.D.K.
Samanta, Mr.M.Gupta, Mr.A.Samanta…appear.
RE: GA NO.3318 of 2013.
The Court : Sufficient cause is shown.
The delay in making this review application is condoned.
This application [GA No.3318 of 2013].is allowed.
The review application is formally admitted.
RE: GA NO.3319 of 2013.
The writ petitioner wants review of my judgment and order dated 19th August, 2013 ; mainly, two grounds have been taken.
It was said that although the writ petition had several grounds and covered the entire dispute between the parties, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while arguing the matter, due to inadvertence, left out a few points.
Secondly, it was urged that the following finding of the Court was erroneous and, hence, there was an error on the face of the order.
This finding is set out hereinbelow : “Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation showed me the approval at all levels that this policy has received right upto the level of the Hon’ble Minister in charge of the Corporation.” According to Mr.Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, the policy was not approved by the Minister.
On the contrary, Mr.Gupta, learned senior counsel said that the signature of the Minister appeared in the document.
There is no doubt that the Minister had actually signed.
The contention is whether the Minister signed as a Minister or as the Chairman of the Board.
Both the points, in my opinion, do not constitute any ground for review of an order.
They cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the order or record.
Neither can it be said that there is reliance on a document, which was not found at the time of hearing, despite the use of due diligence.
I am of the opinion that as far as the fiRs.point is concerned, regarding the inability of the learned counsel to place all the grounds in the writ petition, the appeal Court and not a Court hearing the review application has the power to examine the issue and grant necessary relief to the writ petitioner, if such relief is justified.
In my opinion, it has got similar power to correct mistakes of the trial court with regard to the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This review application [GA No.3319 of 2013].is disposed of with the above observations.
The applicant may now take steps as are available to him in law which includes approaching the Hon’ble Appeal Court.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I.
Pkd.
A.R.[C.R.].P.MUKERJI, J.)