AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The back ground of the matter is that on 18.07.2026, the applicant, Shri Janaki Ballav Mohanty, Deputy Welfare Commissioner [retd.], filed OA No. 416 of 2026, seeking direction to the Respondents to trace, verify and process the pending TA Bills which he had submitted while he was working at Dhanban for the years - 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010. The said OA was heard and dismissed vide order dated 02.090.2026 with observation as under:
“3.After giving a hearing in the matter, opportunity was allowed to the applicant to produce any such evidence that he had at all undertaken the tours while he was in service and submitted TA Bills for the years 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 but he failed to show any such evidence except referring to his representations which he had submitted and enclosed to this OA; wherefrom no such magnitude can be shown relating to undertaking the tour and submissions of TA Claims. Hence, e are of the considered view that the applicant sought relief from a phantom problem, much like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there. In the result, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Now, by filing this RA, on 30.09.2026, he seeks to review the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2026 in OA No. 416 of 2026 in exercise of the power conferred u/s. 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 r.w.r 17 (5) of Central Administrative Tribunal [Procedure] Rules, 1987.
The RA has been placed before us, on circulation, for consideration as to whether any such error apparent on the face of record occasioned in the final order which needs rectification which is the prime consideration as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a series of decisions.
Keeping in mind the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and, the dicta, set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of exercising of the power of review by the Court/Tribunal, we have examined the pleadings and materials placed in OA No. 416 of 2026 so also in this RA vis-a-vis the order dated 02.09.2026 which the applicant sought to review in this RA.
It is noteworthy that law is well settled in a series of decisions that review of an order/judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it, is proper and only where a glaring omission of patent mistake or like grave error has crept in the order, sought to be reviewed by judicial fallibility, power of review can be exercised but certainly power of review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. In this regard, it would suffice to place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) (at p. 1911); Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (AIR 1975 SC 1500); A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047); Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674), and Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715.
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) (at p. 1911) reads as under:
"It is sufficient to say that 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."
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (AIR 1975 SC 1500), reads as under:
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission of patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility."
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047), reads as under:
"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."
While dealing with the power to review its own judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674), reiterated the view taken in the case of Sow Chandra Kanta's case (supra) and held that the finality of a judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".
Thus, from the above, it is clear that review jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a patent mistake apparent on the face of record and not to substitute a view. In Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“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 I 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".
Thus, a close scrutiny of the pleadings in this Review Application, clearly establishes that the applicant is not seeking to correct a patent error or glaring mistake apparent on the face of the record. Rather, the applicant is attempting to have the matter reheard afresh in the guise of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which is entirely impermissible in law.
In the circumstances stated above, we see no ground to entertain this RA, which is, accordingly, dismissed on circulation, making the costs easy. Registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to the applicant and, send a copy of this order to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 by post. The order be also uploaded in the official website.