Justice For All vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 12 OCTOBER, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC010020192013
+ W.P.(C) 3684/2013
JUSTICE FOR ALL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate for the
Petitioner/Review Petitioner.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
REVIEW PET. 487/2026 & CM APPL. 70841/2026
1. The present Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC has been filed by the Petitioner/Review Petitioner
seeking review of the Judgment dated 23.01.2026 passed by this Court in
REVIEW PET. 475/2025 & CM APPL. 58009/2025 filed in the present Writ
Petition being W.P.(C) 3684/2013.
2. Though ordinarily a review over a review is not maintainable in law,
however, it is pertinent to mention that vide Order dated 12.12.2025, this
Court had directed that REVIEW PET. 475/2025 would be treated as an
application seeking modification of the Order dated 13.04.2023 passed by
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 1 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
this Court in the Writ Petition. Vide the said Order, this Court had also
permitted the Petitioner to move an application seeking amendment in the
prayer clauses of the Review Petition. In compliance of the said Order dated
12.12.2025, the Petitioner had moved an application being CM APPL.
80291/2025 seeking modification of the Review Petition, which was
allowed vide Order dated 17.12.2025. Vide the said Order, the REVIEW
PET. 475/2025 was also considered as an application seeking modification
of the Order dated 13.04.2023, and Judgment was reserved by this Court.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case reveal that the
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 was filed by the Petitioner seeking implementation of
the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 [ hereinafter referred to as ‘RTE Act’] and more particularly for
ensuring the compliance of mandate of providing free books, uniforms and
other study materials to the students admitted under Economically Weaker
Section [ hereinafter referred to as ‘EWS’] and Disadvantaged Group
Freeship Category [ hereinafter referred to as ‘DG’] of the Society, in aided
and unaided recognized private schools of Delhi. During the pendency of the
Writ Petition, various directions have been passed by this Court to ensure
implementation of the RTE Act, and various contempt Orders have also
been passed for non-compliance with the Orders.
4. On 13.04.2023, the Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court
noticing that the Government is willing to provide textbooks and study
materials to the students, however, this Court kept the Contempt Petition
pending to see as to whether the Government is providing uniforms to the
students or are they giving cash in lieu of the uniforms.
5. Material on record indicates that a Circular dated 14.03.2023 was
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 2 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
issued by the Directorate of Education stating that in compliance of the
directions of this Court, the Directorate of Education has decided to provide
writing materials (notebooks and stationery etc.) in kind with effect from the
academic session 2023-24 to the children belonging to the EWS/DG
category. The order indicated that with respect to providing uniforms in
Government and Government-aided schools, the Directorate of Education
has constituted a Committee to conduct a market study regarding the cost of
the readymade uniforms and to make recommendations for a revision of
existing rates, which was subject to the approval of the Finance Department
and availability of sufficient funds.
6. On 30.09.2024, this Court recorded the submissions of the learned
Standing Counsel for GNCTD that the GNCTD will positively start
providing uniforms to all the students in all government-run schools in Delhi
from the next academic session, at least one month in advance before the
commencement of the next session, and so far as the textbooks and writing
materials are concerned, it was stated that the same are being provided to all
eligible students strictly in terms of the provisions of the RTE Act and the
Rules framed thereunder.
7. Material on record further indicates that a new Policy was also framed
on 10.06.2025. The new Policy indicates that the Government was of the
opinion that provision for providing uniforms is a tedious and intensive
process, which shall overburden the Department or school in the non-core
activity. The tender process through Government E-Marketplace (GeM) is a
time-taking process and usually takes approximately about six months. The
uniform of each and every school is different and, therefore, the
management of different types/varieties/colours of school uniforms is not
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 3 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
feasible and is becoming impossible for the Government.
8. The aforesaid Policy decision of the Government led to the filing of
the Review Petition being REVIEW PET. 475/2025 by the Petitioner
seeking review/modification of the Order dated 13.04.2023.
9. This Court perused the material, including the Note for Council of
Ministers which brings out the recommendations of the Committee for
revision of School uniforms and other materials, and after considering the
material on record, this Court, vide the Judgment dated 23.01.2026, accepted
the new Policy dated 10.06.2025 and modified the Order dated 13.04.2023
by directing the GNCTD to ensure that an adequate amount is provided to
the students for uniforms in accordance with the Policy decision taken by
the Government.
10. By way of the present Review Petition being REVIEW PET.
487/2026, the Petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 23.01.2026
passed by this Court.
11. In the present Review Petition, it is submitted by the learned Counsel
for the Review Petitioner that an opportunity to file a reply was not given to
the Review Petitioner. This Court does not agree with the said submission of
the Review Petitioner for the reason that adequate time was given to the
Review Petitioner after filing of the Review Petition. The learned Counsel
for the Review Petitioner appeared and argued the matter in full and no time
was sought to file any reply. The contention that the review petition was not
heard is not correct.
12. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Review
Petitioner that the Judgment dated 23.01.2026, which is under review, is
contrary to the mandate of the Statute. The new Policy dated 10.06.2025 has
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 4 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
been accepted by this Court after finding that the mandate of the Statute is
not being violated.
13. This Court is of the opinion that, by way of the present Review
Petition, the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner completely seeks to
re-argue the matter. The parameters for a Court exercising its review
jurisdiction are now well settled. The Apex Court in Haridas Das vs. Usha
Rani Banik, ( 2006) 4 SCC 78 , while considering the scope and ambit of
Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, observed as under:
“ 14 . In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
[(1995) 1 SCC 170 : AIR 1995 SC 455] it was held
that:
“8. It is well settled that the review proceedings
are not by way of an appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation
of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1,
while dealing with similar jurisdiction available
to the High Court while seeking to review the
orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this
Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC
1047] speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has
made the following pertinent observations:
„It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of
the Constitution to preclude the High Court
from exercising the power of review which
inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction
to prevent miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors committed
by it. But, there are definitive limits to the
exercise of the power of review. The power
of review may be exercised on the discovery
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 5 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be produced
by him at the time when the order was made;
it may be exercised where some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record is
found, it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits. That would be the
province of a court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate
power which may enable an appellate court
to correct all manner of errors committed by
the subordinate court.‟ ” (SCC pp. 172-73,
para 8)
15 . A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of
a judgment or an order could be sought : (a) from the
discovery of new and important matters or evidence
which after the exercise of due diligence was not within
the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important
matter or evidence could not be produced by the
applicant at the time when the decree was passed or
order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record or any other
sufficient reason.
16 . In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047] this
Court held that there are definite limits to the exercise
of power of review. In that case, an application under
Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code was
filed which was allowed and the order passed by the
Judicial Commissioner was set aside and the writ
petition was dismissed. On an appeal to this Court it
was held as under : (SCC p. 390, para 3)
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 6 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
“It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo
Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909]
there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution
to preclude a High Court from exercising the
power of review which inheres in every court of
plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to
the exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking the review or
could not be produced by him at the time when the
order was made; it may be exercised where some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on
the ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits. That would be the province of a court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused
with appellate powers which may enable an
appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court.”
17 . The judgment in Aribam case [(1979) 4 SCC 389 :
AIR 1979 SC 1047] has been followed in Meera
Bhanja [(1995) 1 SCC 170 : AIR 1995 SC 455] . In
that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent
on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to
review must be such an error which may strike one on
a mere looking at the record and would not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning. The following
observations in connection with an error apparent on
the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan
Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [(1960) 1
SCR 890 : AIR 1960 SC 137] were also noted : (AIR p.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 7 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
137)
“An error which has to be established by a long-
drawn process of reasoning on points where there
may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record. Where an alleged error is far from self-
evident and if it can be established, it has to be
established, by lengthy and complicated
arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a
writ of certiorari according to the rule governing
the powers of the superior court to issue such a
writ.” (SCR pp. 901-02)
18 . It is also pertinent to mention the observations of
this Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8
SCC 715] . Relying upon the judgments in Aribam
[(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047] and Meera
Bhanja [(1995) 1 SCC 170 : AIR 1995 SC 455] it was
observed as under : (SCC p. 719, para 9)
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may
be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record. An
error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
„reheard and corrected‟. A review petition, it must
be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be „an appeal in disguise‟.”
14. In State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 , the
Apex Court has considered as to what exactly can be said to be a ‘ mistake or
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 8 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
error apparent on the face of record ’ and has held as under:
“ 35 . The principles which can be culled out from the
abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its
order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is
akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of
the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not
otherwise.
(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason”
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in
the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can
be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot
be treated as an error apparent on the face of record
justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in
the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section
22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment
of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a
superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the
tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to
material which was available at the time of initial
decision. The happening of some subsequent event or
development cannot be taken note of for declaring the
initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 9 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party
seeking review has also to show that such matter or
evidence was not within its knowledge and even after
the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be
produced before the court/tribunal earlier.”
15. This Court is of the opinion that the grounds that have been raised in
the present Review Petition are primarily an attempt to re-argue the case in
its entirety, which is outside the scope of a Review Petition. It is well settled
that the Courts do not interfere with a Policy decision, unless the same is so
arbitrary, whimsical and capricious that it shocks the conscience of the
Courts. The decision of the Government that it shall provide cash to the
students instead of providing uniforms because of the difficulties faced by
the Government cannot be said to be completely arbitrary, whimsical or
capricious.
16. The contention that the policy is contrary to the Statute was argued in
the Court at the time of hearing of the application for modification which
was heard by this Court in the Review Petition which was re-numbered as an
application for modification. These contentions were considered. The
relevant Statute was looked into and this Court was of the opinion that the
new policy is not contrary to the scheme of the Act. The Review Petition
herein is once again agitating the very same arguments raised at the time of
hearing.
17. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record or
that this Court has omitted to consider any material that was placed before
the Court. All the materials provided by the GNCTD, including the new
Policy dated 10.06.2025 and Note for Council of Ministers, have been
considered by this Court before coming to the decision that the Policy dated
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 10 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51
10.06.2025 is not against the mandate of the Statute.
18. With these observations, the Review Petition is dismissed, along with
pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026
S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 3684/2013 Page 11 of 11
21.10.2026 15:51