REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2279 OF 2010

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4757 OF 2010

Delhi Pradesh Regd. Med. Prt. Assn.                      ....  Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                                …. Respondents

O R D E R

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 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.

2. In fact, this case has arisen out of the judgment and order dated  

19.11.2008 passed by Delhi High Court dismissing 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, Allahabad.

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 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:-

(i) Hindi  Sahitya  Sammelan  is  neither  a  University/Deemed  

University nor an Educational Board.

(ii) It is a Society registered under the Societies 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.

2

(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  from  the  

Statutory Authority after 1967.  No attempt has ever been made  

by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14  

of the Act, 1970, and further did not seek modification of entry  

No.105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.

(vi) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without  

verifying  as  to  whether  the  candidate  has  some  

elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda  

in any recognized college.

(vii) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the  

qualification  prescribed  in  Schedule  II,  III  & IV to  the  Act,  

1970 is not entitled to practice.

(viii) Mere  inclusion  of  name  of  a  person  in  the  State  Register  

maintained  under  the  State  Act  is  not  enough  to  make  him  

eligible to practice.

(ix) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution  

is not absolute, and thus, is subject to reasonable restrictions as  

provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

(x) Restriction  on  the  right  to  practice  without  possessing  the  

requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the  

Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of  

the provisions of the State Act.   

3

4. When  the  Review Petition  of  the  applicant  came before  the  

Court  by  circulation  on  27.1.2011,  the  Court  passed  the  following  

order:-

“It  may  be  desirable  that  before  we  entertain/   consider the review petition,  the learned counsel  for  the  applicant  may explain  as to whether  the   advocate,  other  than  the  Advocate-on-Record  at   the  time  of  the  disposal  of  the  case,  can  file  a   review  petition  in  the  light  of  the  judgment  reported in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr.   vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1005;   and further when the Court has heard a bunch of   petitions,  and  disposed  them  all  by  a  common  judgment, whether review by the parties in one of   the case can be filed on the ground that its lawyer   could not make submissions.

List after two weeks.”   

5. The  applicant  filed  a  reply  to  the  same  contending  that  the  

aforesaid  judgment  referred  to  by  this  Court  in  Tamil  Nadu  

Electricity Board & Anr. (supra) has no application in this case for  

the reason that litigant is free to change his advocate when he feels  

that the advocate retained cannot espouse his cause efficiently or for  

any other reason and to substantiate its case, the applicant relied upon  

the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  R.D.  Saxena  v.  Balram  Prasad  

Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264; and C.S. Venkatasubramanian v. State  

4

Bank of India, (1997) 1 SCC 254.  It has further been submitted that  

a  party  is  free  to  retain  any  advocate  if  it  feels  that  its  erstwhile  

advocate has not contested the case efficiently and effectively, and it  

was wrong to dismiss the petition in absence of its counsel.  It has  

further been submitted in response to our earlier order as under:-

“That it  is respectfully submitted that the review  petitions were filed in all the appeals which were   disposed of on 21.10.2010 by this Hon’ble Court  passed  in  Review  Petition  (C)  No.1741/2010,   Review  Petition  (C)  No.1742/2010,  Review  Petition (C) No.1743/2010 & Review Petition (C)   No.1744/2010”

6. In view of the submissions made herein we thought it proper to  

hear the learned counsel of the applicant in open Court and thus, the  

matter came today for hearing.

7. Shri  Fakhruddin,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  for  the  

applicant was explained that though the counsel for the applicant was  

not present when other connected appeals were heard and decided, he  

may point out as what is the material in his possession to show that  

any  of  the  findings  recorded  by  us  and  quoted  hereinabove  is  

factually incorrect.  Shri Fakhruddin could not point out any material  

5

on the basis of which any of the findings so recorded can be held to be  

worth  reconsideration.   Not  a  single  member  of  the  applicant’s  

Association  has  filed  any  document  to  show  as  what  was  the  

minimum  qualification  to  join  the  course;  what  was  its  duration;  

where such members have completed their course and training; and  

when they passed the examination and what were the marks secured  

by them.  

8. In fact, as nothing has been argued before us today in support of  

the  review petition  and it  has  been submitted  by  Shri  Fakhruddin,  

learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that as the matter  

stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in  Rajasthan  

Pradesh  V.S.  Sardarshahar  (supra),  he  has  nothing  to  add.  The  

review  petition  cannot  be  argued  merely  on  technicalities  that  

applicant’s counsel remained absent on the day the connected matters  

involving  same  questions  of  fact  and  law  had  been  argued  and  

decided. Thus, Shri Fakhruddin has fairly conceded  that the review  

petition is nothing, but purely an academic exercise as nothing can be  

argued against the impugned judgment dated 1.6.2010.  

6

9. As  is  evident  from  the  above  that  entertaining  the  review  

petition  is  proved  not  only  a  futile  exercise  but  sheer  wastage  of  

judicial time. Applicant has not disclosed anywhere as to whether any  

grievance has ever been raised by it against the counsel who remained  

negligent and did not render any service to it.  Reply to our first order  

dated 27.1.2011 has been filed urging that Court is bound to give way  

to the entitlements of litigants. We are of the considered opinion that  

such conduct  of  the litigant  has not  only been reprehensible  but  is  

tantamount to abuse of the process of the court.  We are not able to  

appreciate as to whether the petition was filed to satisfy the ego of the  

litigant or the litigant  was ill-advised  by the members of the Bar just  

for petty pecuniary gain. The petition has been filed without realizing  

that the courts are over burdened and no litigant should mis-use the  

forum of the court merely because litigation is a luxury for him.  The  

review application has been filed on frivolous grounds as neither in  

the petition, nor during the course of hearing could  the error/mistake  

in the judgment either on law or on facts be pointed out.  

10. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors., AIR  

1996 SC 2687, this Court has observed as under:

7

“No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on   the Court time and public money in order to get   his  affairs  settled  in  the  manner  he  wishes.   However, access to justice should not be misused  as  a  license  to  file  misconceived  and  frivolous   petitions.”

11. In  view  of  the  above,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  review  

application has been filed without any sense of responsibility.  We do  

not find appropriate words to deprecate such a practice adopted by the  

litigants and the members of the Bar. Grounds taken in the application  

are preposterous.  The review petition hopelessly lacks merit  and is  

accordingly dismissed.

…………….....................J.                                       (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

…………… ...................J.

        (SWATANTER KUMAR)         

New Delhi, March 11, 2011.

8