http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5075 of 2006

PETITIONER: M/s Suresh Chandra Khandelwal & Co.              

RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Ors.                                             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26402-404 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,  Indore Bench, dismissing the review petition filed by the  appellant.   

Background facts in  a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant had claimed benefit available under the  compounding method in payment of entertainment duty under  the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duties  (Advertisement Tax) Act, 1936 (in short the ’Act’).  Prayer was  sought for to accord the benefit with effect from 1.4.1996 in  place of 1.1.1997 as was granted.  It was pleaded that though  the benefit was granted by order dated 20.12.1996 rightly, it  was not proper to confine it for the period from 1.1.1997 to  31.3.1997 instead of from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997.  The writ  petition was dismissed on the ground that no effective relief  can be granted to the writ petitioner in 2003-04 in respect of a  dispute which related to the year 1996-97. The order dated  7.1.2004 passed in writ petition No.67/97 was assailed by  filing a Letters Patent Appeal.  According to the appellant, the  filing of the LPA was necessitated because the writ petitioner  had sought permission of the Court to place reliance on the  decision rendered in another Writ Petition (MP No. 3398 of  1992) dated 21.11.2000. By order dated 26.2.2002,  learned  Single Judge directed that the matter shall be listed, so it can  be taken note of at the time of final hearing.  Contrary to the  order, learned Single Judge did not take note of the order  passed in a similar case.  The Letters Patent Appeal was  disposed of inter alia with the following observations:

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties  and after perusal of the record, we are of the  opinion that if according to the appellant, the  question posed in the appellant’s writ petition  stood answered by a judgment pronounced by  another Single Judge and also keeping in mind  that the said judgment has neither been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

referred to nor considered, then it would be a  fit case where appellant should apply for  review of the said order so as to specifically  bring it to the notice of the learned Single  Judge and then to advance arguments."

Accordingly, the review petition was filed on 16.8.2004  which was numbered as MCC No. 461 of 2004.  The same was  dismissed by the impugned order holding that review was not  permissible.  It was noted that in any event the decision on  which reliance was placed by the appellant was not in the  nature of a binding precedent.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the LPA  filed was not decided, because the Division Bench felt that the  same can be agitated in a review petition.  Contrary to what  was stated by the Division Bench, learned Single Judge held  that review petition was not maintainable.  Consequentially,  the appellant was left without a remedy.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that  the review petition was not maintainable.

We find substance in the plea of learned counsel for the  appellant that it was being left without a remedy. The Division  Bench declined to interfere in the matter holding that the  grievance could be looked into in a review petition.  Learned  Single Judge observed that the review petition was not  maintainable.  

In the peculiar circumstances, we set aside the order of  the learned Single Judge.  It would be appropriate for the  Division Bench to hear the LPA No. 106 of 2004.  The same  shall be heard and disposed of on merits in accordance with  law.   

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no  order as to costs.