Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010278642024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./29/2025 JOHIRUL ISLAM S/O MOYNAL SHEIKH, R/O BANAIMARI PT-IV, P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783339 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, BLOCK NO. 12, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SSC NORTH EASTERN REGION GUWAHATI HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE BASISTHA ROAD ASSAM SACHIBAYAY DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE MEDICAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY CMO (SG) IRLA NO. 5954 CHN P.O. RME BOARD GC CRPF GUWAHATI-23 4:THE MEDICAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY SMO Page No.# 2/5 IRLA NO. 11430 138 BN. CRPF-ITANAGAR RME BOARD GC CRPF GUWAHATI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALI, MR. Y ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 28.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6839/2023 should be reviewed, inasmuch as, the petitioner had sought for a clarification from the office of the Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) as to the qualification of Dr. A. Mahanta, who had issued the medical certificate to the petitioner. He submits that the clarification sought for vide Pleader’s Notice dated Nil, was replied to by the Professor & Head In-charge, Department of Neurology, GMCH on 16.02.2024, i.e., after the judgment and order dated 29.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6839/2023, stating that Dr. A. Mahanta was an Assistant Professor of Neurology in the GMCH. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the clarification made by the GMCH on 16.02.2024, with regard to the fact that Dr. A. Mahanta was a Medical Doctor, the finding of this Court in Para 10 of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6839/2023 should be set aside. Page No.# 3/5 3. Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that no grounds for review has been made out and as such, the review petition should be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. As can be seen from the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6839/2023, the writ petition had been dismissed, not only on the issue of there being no clarification whether Dr. A. Mahanta was an MBBS Doctor or otherwise, the writ petition had also been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had tried to make out a case that two different review medical examinations had been held on 02.08.2023 and 05.08.2023, though only one review medical examination had been held on 02.08.2023, wherein the petitioner was found to be unfit. It was in view of the above reasons that this Court had relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, to not examine the writ petition any further, as the Apex Court had held that the party who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts would become impossible. The Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground alone, the court would be failing in its duty. Further, the petitioner’s medical condition had been declared Page No.# 4/5 to be unfit not only by the medical examination held on 31.07.2023, but also found to be unfit in the review medical board, which had been held on 02.08.2023. 6. Para Nos. 9 & 10 of the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 are reproduced hereinbelow as follows:- “9. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that two different review medical examinations were held on 02.08.2023 and 05.08.2023, it is clear from Annexure 8 (Page 34 and 41) that the review medical examination had been held only once, i.e. on 02.08.2023, wherein the petitioner had been found to be unfit. 10. The document shown to this Court by the petitioner’s counsel, i.e. Page 41 of the writ petition, which he claims is the report of the second review medical examination of the petitioner held on 05.08.2023, shows the date “2/8/23”. However, there is a number “05” shown beside the date “2/8/23”. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that he had been found fit subsequently by one Dr. A. Mahanta, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahanta is not on any letter head. There is nothing known as to whether Dr. Mahanta is an MBBS doctor or otherwise. The copy of the original medical certificate issued by Dr. A. Mahanta shows that the same has been written in a blank page and nothing is known as to his address, his Registration Number as a doctor and where he works or his qualification. There is nothing known as to what degree he has.” 7. In the case of The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 and in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Supreme Court has held that a review petition cannot partake the character of an appeal. As such, this Court is not inclined to go into the other aspects of this case, which have already been decided by this Page No.# 5/5 Court. 8. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the review petition cannot be allowed only on the ground that there had been some clarification with regard to Dr. A. Mahanta being a MBBS Doctor. The other issue of the petitioner trying to mislead the Court with regard to the two review medical examinations being found to be false, this Court does not find any ground to allow the review petition. 9. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant