Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.1096 of 2023 Preet Pal Singh Dhillon and another …………Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Swati Verma, learned B.H. for the State. Delay Condonation Application (IA No.3 of 2026)
3. A delay condonation application has been filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the review application.
5. Since there is no opposition from side of the counsel for the State to the said delay condonation application, the delay of 2 days in filing the review application is condoned.
6. Accordingly delay condonation application stands allowed. Review Application (MCC No.2 of 2026)
7. By means of the present review application the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to review the judgment dated 09.12.2025, Preet Pal Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another.
8. It is contended by the review applicant/petitioner that while passing the judgment, the orders of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1995) 6 SCC 99 and Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1998) 7 SCC 654 were not been followed.
10. This cannot be a ground for reviewing the judgment and
order dated 09.12.2025, passed by this Court as the said
2 orders of the Apex Court have never been relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the hearing. By filing the review application, the review applicant/petitioner wants to reargue and reopen the case, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. There is no apparent error of law on the face of record, which could be corrected without going deep in the matter.
11. The review cannot be filed in disguise of an appeal, therefore, this review application stands rejected.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.04.2026 SK