ABDUL MAJID vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition that challenged certain orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. The core legal question raised in the review petition concerned the proper interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) along with its two provisos. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contention urging an alternative interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions merely amounts to a plea that another interpretation was possible, which does not furnish any valid ground for review of a judgment. The key principle laid down is that a mere possibility of an alternative interpretation of statutory provisions does not constitute a sufficient ground for granting a review of a judicial decision.
- Does a plea that an alternative interpretation of a statutory provision was possible furnish a valid ground for review?
- Whether the interpretation of section 2(12) of the relevant statute can be reopened through a review petition on the mere ground of a preferred alternative construction?
- Section 2(12), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-Abdul Majid's appeal from an order of the High Court, by which his writ petition, calling in question the validity of certain orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, was dismissed, was heard by a Bench of three Judges of this Court, and dismissed by order dated the 3rd May 1967. This is a petition on his behalf for review of that judgment.
2. The main point urged by Mr. Fazl-i-Mahmood in support of the petition for review, is that the interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) and the two provisos sub joined to that section, adopted by this Court, was erroneous. This point has been fully dealt with in the impugned order of this Court, and the contention raised merely amounts to a plea that another-inter-- pretation of the relevant provisions was possible, and should have been adopted. This furnishes no ground for review.
3. The petition is dismissed.