Joy Kaitharath vs Managing Director And Ors

This is an application for review filed by the applicant. By judgment dated 31.08.2017, the applications were disposed with certain directions.

The case of the applicant is that the judgement is to be reviewed and the relief sought for is to be granted on the prayer Nos.iii, iv and vi.

The relief sought for in prayer No.iii is to issue a direction to the respondent No.1 to assure uninterrupted water supply in the neighbouring area round the clock, so as to meet the minimum requirement of 135 litres of water per person per day, forthwith.

The relief sought for in prayer No.iv is direction to respondent No.1 to get the accumulated wastes of iron oxide sludge and Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) sludge, in the old and new ponds transferred to Kerala Enviro Infrastructure Limited (KEIL), or any other agency approved by the Government of India, for the storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes and polluting wastes, forthwith and to dewater and transfer the wastes generated thereafter on a day to day basis.

The relief sought for in prayer No.vi is a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to exercise superintendence and surveillance over the 1st respondent company to ensure compliance with the directions.

We have gone through the applications for review. Before considering the contentions raised in the Review Application it is to be noted that the scope of the application for review is entirely different from that of an appeal. If the case of the applicant is that an erroneous decision is rendered, it cannot be corrected by an application for review. Instead the party has to seek the remedy of an appeal, as provided under the Act. By filing an application for review, the applicant cannot get the remedy which would be available in an appeal.

The judgment shows that the contentions raised by the applicant have already been considered and decided. If the applicant is not satisfied with the findings, the remedy is not to file an application for review but to challenge the order in accordance with law by an appeal.

The judgment reveals that the question whether the sludge is hazardous material has been considered and found that it is not hazardous. Though the applicant has contended that the samples taken for filing the report by NEERI should not have been relied on, we find that there is no apparent error or other sufficient reasons to review the reliance placed on the report of the NEERI. We find no reason to review the findings on issue No.iv.

By an interim order supply of drinking water to the affected persons have already been ordered. In the judgment under issue No.3, It was already held that it is the bounden duty of the respondent No1 to continue supply of adequate potable water to the people residing in and around the industrial premises, which they are doing as per the directions of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we find no reason to review the findings on issue No.3 also.

The question of granting relief under issue No.vi has also been considered in detail in the Judgement. We find there are no sufficient reasons to review the said finding also.

Therefore, as there are no apparent errors or omissions or failure to consider any material or any other sufficient reason to review the Judgement, the Review Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.