DELHI PRADESH REGD. MED. PRT. ASSN. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 11-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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. 
B 
c 
D 
CASE LAW REFERENCE: 
AIR 2010 SC 2221 
Referred to 
Para 3 
(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) 
No. 2279 of 2010. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 4757 of 2010 etc. 
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. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
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. 
H 
2. In fact, this case has arisen out of the judgment and 
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 E 
Registration Act. 
(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 
G 
from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt 
has ever been made b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.