AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant seeking review of order dated 31.10.2023 passed in OA No.234/2020.
The aforementioned OA was filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
“(A)To quash impugned order dated 06.11.2019(Annexure A1) dismissing the representation dated 25.09.2009 and quash demand/recovery letter dated 11.07.2019 bearing no F.4(128C)/IV/PV/PWD&H/Part file/8639-40 (Annexure A-2) recovering therein Rs 13,46,946/- (Rupees thirteen lakh forty six thousand nine hundred forty six only), on the pretext of penal Rent in R/o Flat no. 128- C, S.F., Type-IV, Delhi Govt. Accommodation, Sunder Apartment, Paschim Vihar Delhi.
(B)To Direct Refund of Rs 13,46,946/- (Rupees thirteen lakh forty six thousand nine hundred forty six only) alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deduction/receipt by the respondents till its refund, and
(C)Order Costs as to this application, and
(D)Pass any other or such order(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
After going through the pleadings of the case this Tribunal passed the aforementioned order as it lacked merit. The review applicant in paragraph-11 (A) & (B) of the RA has mentioned about an RTI reply received by the applicant on 01.12.2023 and that there was a policy of inter-pool exchange between the Government of India and Government of NCT of Delhi. Para-11 (C) of the RA mentions the following ground:
“BECAUSE the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 has been passed on the misrepresentation of the respondents about the existence of the policy of inter-pool exchange which was specifically in knowledge of the respondents and which came to knowledge of the applicant through RTI, it is therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed.”
The rest of sub-paragraphs under paragraph-11 of the RA have mentioned the difficulty which the applicant will be facing because of the dismissal of the aforementioned OA.
Heard the RA. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the factual position as has been pleaded in the OA and detailed in order dated 31.10.2023.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has stated that there is no error on the face of facts and law as detailed in the OA. He further states that the applicant has failed to substantiate that there was an apparent error in the order dated 31.10.2023 based on the material facts which was brought on record. The applicant in the RA has also indirectly admitted that there is no error apparent on facts or law. It is only in paragraph-11 (C) of RA the review applicant has mentioned that impugned order dated 31.10.2023 has been passed based on misrepresentation of the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically mentioned in paragraph-5 of their reply to RA that there was no such misrepresentation by the learned counsel for the respondents during the proceedings when the OA was finally decided. He further states that the learned counsel for the applicant has made an attempt to re-argue the case, treating the present review proceedings as forum for appeal against the order dated 31.10.2023 in OA No.234/2020. However, the RA cannot be treated as an appeal and hence it should be dismissed.
5. Analysis
Heard learned counsel for both the parties on RA.
The grounds taken by the applicant in paragraph 11 (A) & (B) that there was an RTI reply dated 01.12.2023 which specifically mentioned about policy regarding inter-pool exchange of official accommodation between the Government of India and Government of NCT of Delhi is contained in OM No.12035/9/89-Pol.II (Vol.II) dated 19.09.2014. No such RTI reply dated 01.12.2023 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the order in the OA has been passed on 31.10.2023. Hence, this RTI reply in fact was not brought before the Tribunal at the time of passing of the final order. In paragraph 11(C) of the RA the applicant has mentioned about the existence of a policy of inter-pool exchange between Government of India and Government of NCT of Delhi. The applicant has not brought any specific order in his favor issued by the respondents that the accommodation which he occupied was allowed to him to retain at Delhi when he was posted out of Delhi as a part of inter-pool exchange between the said two Governments. As there was no specific documentary evidence containing any specific order by the competent authority for the inter-pool exchange of the accommodation this Tribunal could not have come to any other conclusion than what has been ordered thereof in the aforementioned OA. The order dated 31.10.2023 in the said OA is as per the facts and law brought before this Tribunal during the OA proceedings. Hence, there was no error apparent on the face of facts and law while passing the order dated 31.10.2023.
This Tribunal is in agreement with the averment by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is an attempt to re-argue the matter by the learned counsel for the applicant under the guise of RA. The Review Applications are not in the form of appeal and hence such re-arguing the case and bringing in new facts at the time of RA is not permissible.
6. Conclusion
In view of the above analysis, the RA lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.