Prateek Jalan DECISION
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, C.J.
Proceedings of the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM No. 18015/2020 in RP 121/2020 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
Review Petition 121/2020
1. This Review Petition has been preferred by the original writ petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4695/2020 which was preferred as a PIL for the benefit of advocates. The writ petition was dismissed vide our order dated 29th July, 2020.
2. Having heard the petitioner in-person and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Review Petition mainly for the reason that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in our order dated 29th July, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 4695/2020.
3. Much has been argued out by the Review Applicant-party in person, about the previous orders wherein notices have been issued by this Court in matters pertaining to creation of the post of Advocate General in Delhi, selection process for the students etc., which are annexed as Annexures to the memo of the Review Petition. We have perused those annexures.
4. The present case is a PIL preferred by the party in-person for including Advocates in the definition of the word "professional" under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. We are of the view that the advocates are capable of filing their own litigation, if they wish to do so. On this point itself, we have dismissed the writ petition as a PIL.
5. In the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in MANU/SC/0098/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 8 and 9 held as under:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [MANU/SC/0004/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 389: AIR 1979 SC 1047], speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0395/1961 : AIR 1963 SC 1909], there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found........