Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a Review Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking review of an order dated 13/12/2019, which disposed of Writ Petition No. 1462/2019 filed by Mr. Kamal and Loshika Bulchandani. The disposal of the Writ Petition was based upon a concession expressed by the Government Advocate, who did not dispute the position that the respondents were entitled to the relief sought. The Review Petition was filed on the ground that the concession was erroneous and that the order should be reviewed. The court, however, dismissed the Review Petition, holding that the concession made by the Government Advocate is binding on the State and that the State cannot be allowed to resile from it. The court observed that allowing such a review would amount to an abuse of the process of court. The judgment emphasizes the finality of consent orders and the binding nature of concessions made by counsel.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability - Concession by Government Advocate - A review petition against a consent order passed on the basis of a concession made by the Government Advocate is not maintainable as the concession binds the State. The court held that the State cannot be allowed to resile from the concession made by its advocate, as it would amount to an abuse of the process of court. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a review petition is maintainable against a consent order passed on the basis of a concession made by the Government Advocate, and whether the State can resile from such concession.
Final Decision
The Review Petition is dismissed. The court held that the concession made by the Government Advocate is binding on the State and the State cannot be allowed to resile from it.
Law Points
- Review petition
- concession by government advocate
- binding nature of concession
- consent order
- finality of order
- abuse of process of court
