GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 27 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 5:
1. Heard Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the NF Railway.
2. By filing this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review/modification/alteration of order dated 30.11.2023, passed by this Court in MFA No. 83/2019, by which not only the appeal was dismissed for nonprosecution, but also on merit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he left for the Court from his home at 09:30 AM, but on reaching midway towards the Court he realized that the file which he was studying in the morning was left on the table at his home and therefore, he went back to get the file but by the time he reached back, due to traffic jam it was already 11:45 AM and in the meanwhile, the matter was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred this application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the connected appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the order of this Court dated 18.09.2025, wherein the Court query was to the effect whether apart from recalling that part of the order by which the connected MFA was dismissed for non-prosecution, but the order was also on merit and therefore, whether by exercising review jurisdiction, the Court would have power to reverse the finding recorded on merit. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Court would have power to set aside the impugned order in view of the unique facts and circumstances of this case. It is submitted that the learned Railway Tribunal relied on the evidence of ASI Rabindranath Ray in arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. However, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in the case diary produced before the learned Tribunal that there is a entry made on 16.06.2014 at 01:00 PM regarding seizure of journey ticket. Accordingly, it is submitted that the facts were wrongly appreciated not only by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, but the same error has percolated in the order of this Court. It is further submitted that not only the record should reveal that the availability of the seizure list was corroborated by the entries made in the case diary and moreover, the Officer-In-Charge of Bongaigaon GRPS, Assam had recorded on 30.08.2014, below the signature of the seizing officer (certified to be true copy). Accordingly, it is submitted the fact that there was an entry in the case diary regarding seizure of the journey ticket of the deceased, there was good and sufficient reason and justification for re-hearing of the entire matter.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the case of Sangram Singh Vs. the Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425, the Supreme Court of India had held to the effect that principle of natural justice requires that no one should be condemned unheard. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be precluded from participating in the hearing on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors., (7987) 2 SCC 107, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court of India to the effect that when such substantial justice and technical constraints are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpKTRCP7GPTGxp8rwdwtop7SxHqurXGlmxYEQdQ7JaI8z&caseno=Review.Pet./21/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010285222023&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
