Jagdish Solanki v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 88/2019 1. Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income-TaxOffice, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours OfIncome-Tax, Rajasthan Region).Office, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours OfIncome-Tax, Rajasthan Region). 2. Jagdish Solanki S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 43 Years,R/o Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third Pole,Mahamandir, Jodhpur-342001 (President Of The Union).R/o Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third Pole,Mahamandir, Jodhpur-342001 (President Of The Union). ----PetitionersVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,New Delhi-110001.Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,New Delhi-110001. 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road,Jodhpur-342010.Jodhpur-342010. 3. Hina P Shah, Member, Central Administrative Tribunal,Jodhpur-342001.Jodhpur-342001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Gupta, through Cisco Webex AppApp For Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 05/02/2021 Order 1.The present review petition has been filed by the petitionersseeking review of the order dated 21.05.2019, passed by theDivision Bench of this Court, whereby writ petition filed by themwas rejected. 2.Mr. T.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, arguinghis review application, submitted that the order impugned passedby the Tribunal contains stipulation of imposition of cost not only against Mr. Jagdish Solanki, President of petitioner association, butalso against him (learned counsel for the petitioner), and thus, theorder under consideration deserves to be reviewed. He madevarious submissions on merits of the case also. 3.On 21.05.2019, this Court has passed the following order:- “Learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw thepresent writ petition with submission that theconcerned aggrieved party namely, Mr. JagdishSolanki may be permitted to seek redress by filing aseparate petition. Leave granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 4.A simple look at the order aforesaid shows that counsel forthe petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petitionwith a liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by a separatepetition. 5.Having regard to the fact that learned counsel for thepetitioner himself withdrew the writ petition, we do not find anyreason to review the order dated 21.05.2019. That apart, for thesame analogy, he (learned counsel for the petitioner) cannotchallenge imposition of cost, without taking up the issue in hisindividual capacity. 6.The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ 9-skm/-