Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010147322026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./114/2026 SRI PRADIP SARKAR S/O - LATE DHIRENDRA CHANDRA SARKAR, R/O - DR. SHYAMA PRASAD PALLY, BADARPUR, DIST - CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT N.H BUILDING, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, PIN - 781006. 2:COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR PIN781006 3:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR PIN - 781006. 4:CHIEF ENGINEER (NATIONAL HIGHWAY WORKS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI PIN -781003 5:CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/5 PIN -781003. 6:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR B.T.R PIN - 783370. 7:SECRETARY PWD BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR B.T.R PIN 783370 8:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD KOKRAJHAR RURAL ROADS DIVISION KOKRAJHAR PIN - 783370. 9:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SRIBHUMI ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ N.H DIVISION SUBHASH NAGAR SRIBHUMI PIN -788710. 10:PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI PIN 781029 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS. D DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, SC, AG,SC, BTC,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Shri SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the review applicant. Also Page No.# 3/5 heard Shri P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam; Shri BC Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam. 2. By the instant application, review has been sought for qua the judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed in WP(C)/2573/2024. 3. Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the primary ground of review is based on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee Vs. the State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 523. It is submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by following the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das & Ors. reported in 2020 (5) GLT 605. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), has made some observations by which the decision taken by this Court would be liable to be reviewed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that, though as a matter of fact there is a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra), the said judgment was not existing when the writ petition was heard and disposed of and accordingly, there may not be any ground for review. 5. It is no longer res integra that a High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 exercises plenary jurisdiction in which the power of review is inbuilt. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of MM Thomas Vs. State Page No.# 4/5 of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 wherein the following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “14. The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court’s power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra a nine-Judge Bench of this Court has recognized the aforesaid superior status of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a court of record.” In a subsequent case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 203, similar views have been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. At the same time, it is also a settled principle that the spirit laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC read with Section 114 would be applicable. 7. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, there is an Explanation as per which, a subsequent decision of a Superior Court shall not be a ground for review of an earlier order. For ready reference, the Explanation which was inserted vide the Amendment made in the year 1976 is extracted hereinbelow: “Explanation. – The fact that the decision on a question of law on which Page No.# 5/5 the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” 8. In the instant case, the primary ground of filing the present application is based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra). Admittedly, the said judgment was not in existence when the writ petition was decided. For the sake of clarity, it is to be put on record that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was delivered on 21.05.2026 whereas the order of which review has been prayed for is dated 22.07.2024. The instant review application for review is clearly hit by the Explanation contained in the Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, the spirit of which would be applicable even a writ proceeding. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no ground for review is made out and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 10. If law permits preferring of an appeal against the original judgment, the rejection of this application for review shall not be a bar for preferring such appeal, in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant