1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Review Petition No. 44 of 2017 Date of decision: 18.03.2026 ________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar & another ...Petitioners Versus Sukesh Kumar & others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Bhanu Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh K. Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 to 6. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Review is sought of the order dated 15.09.2015, passed by this Court in CWP No. 271 of 2014, titled as Sukesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others by respondents No. 6 & 7, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “Accordingly, Tehsildar Recovery, Una is directed to complete the proceedings within eight weeks from today qua the petitioner as well as respondents No. 6 and 7. Petitioner and respondents No. 6 and 7 are directed to cooperate with Tehsildar Recovery, Una and in case they do not join the proceedings, it shall be open to Tehsildar Recovery, Una to proceed them ex parte. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ” 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the original writ petitioner-Sukesh Kumar, whereby following prayers were made:- “a) That the respondents may kindly be directed by way of writ of mandamus to enquire and initiate proceedings against respondents No 3 to 7 and take action against them in accordance with H.P Motor Vehicles Taxation (amendment) Act, 1999 and implement the H.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation (amendment) Act, 1999 in its true spirit. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to impound the vehicles of respondents No. 6 & 7 and recover the Special Road Tax and Token Tax from Respondents No. 6 to 7 in accordance with law.” c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted 3 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 3. Apparently, on account of the response of the State that both the present applicants and writ petitioner were in arrears of taxes, the necessary directions were issued. 4. It is not disputed that the review applicant filed CWP No. 323 of 2016 and notice dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2) was issued and he has filed the aforesaid writ petition, challenging the said notice, whereby the amount was quantified by the State and he has got an interim order in the said case on 12.02.2016, whereby a sum of Rs.2,73,750/- as such was sought to be recovered under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1954. 5. The Review Petition was thereafter filed and listed on 16.11.2016, in which notice was issued. 6. The matter is sought to be re-argued, on merits by another Counsel, who was not the original Counsel in the writ petition, which was decided on 15.09.2015 which order is sought to be reviewed. 4 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 323 of 2016 has stated that he wishes to withdraw the writ petition. 8. We are not inclined to allow any of these prayers, as it was the petitioner who himself had approached this Court seeking direction against the present review petitioners/respondents No. 6 & 7 and got an adverse order against them and against himself once it had come to the notice of this Court that present review petitioners and the writ petitioner were in arrears of taxes. 9. The Apex Court in T.N. Electricity Board Vs. N. Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736, has held that a review petition cannot be maintained or argued by a new counsel when the original matter was argued by a different counsel, particularly when the new counsel attempts to re-argue the merits of the case rather than pointing out a specific error apparent on the face of the record. The relevant portion reads as under: “1. It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, 5 Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to not that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is 6 unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained " No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-on- Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits, It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition". 2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy had for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a fresh Counsel cannot be permitted to re-open the issue and argue the matter, on merits, being not a Counsel in the original proceedings. 7 Even otherwise, the order was passed in the open Court. 11. As noticed, the applicant-review petitioner- Rajesh Kumar has already filed Civil Writ Petition No. 323 of 2016 against the order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2) and got an interim order in his favour and the review petition was filed thereafter. 12. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason as such to entertain this Review Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. Civil Writ Petition No. 323 of 2016 be listed as per roster, for hearing. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. March 18, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.