Praveen Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority

This Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant seeking a recall of the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3776/2016. The prayer for relief reads as follows:-

"In view of the above respectful submissions highlighting the errors apparent on the face of the order dated 08.10.2018 (Ann. RA/1), this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure, RA/1) and rehear the OA afresh".

Giving the facts of the matter the applicant has presented his case for review based on certain points. It is contended that the judgements in support of the grounds, and one of the grounds raised in the OA have not been duly considered while passing the order.

Shri R.A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant advanced his arguments in favour of the contention made in the RA. Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sen Gupta 2008 (8) SCC 612 as under:-

"18. Since the Tribunal's power to review its order/decision is akin to that of the Civil Court, statutorily enumerated and judicially recognized limitations on Civil Court's power of review the judgment/decision would also apply to the Tribunal's power under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. In other words, a Tribunal established under the Act is entitled to review its order/decision only if either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 is available. This would necessarily mean that a Tribunal can review its order/decision on the discovery of new or important matter or evidence which the applicant could not produce at the time of initial decision despite exercise of due diligence, or the same was not within his knowledge or if it is shown that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or there exists some other reason, which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is sufficient for reviewing the earlier order/decision.

xxx xxx xxx

The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."

In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others [1997 (8) SCC 715], the Apex Court has held as under:-

"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". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."

In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999 (9) SCC 596), the Apex Court reiterated that power of review vested in the Tribunal is similar to the one conferred upon a Civil Court and held:-

"30. The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order

The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.

Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment."

Further, in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 it has been held that the scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order.

In Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, it was categorically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the scope of review is very much limited under section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as is vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Tribunal can interfere in a matter if the error pointed out, is plain and apparent, but cannot re-examine the matter as if it is an original application before it.

We have carefully considered all aspects of the case presented before us and do not find that while passing the order dated 08.10.2018 there is any error apparent on the face of record.

Further, this Tribunal has considered all the relevant grounds taken by the applicant. Where any of the grounds raised in the OA relate to matter of details it has been clearly recorded in the order that it is not for this Tribunal to go into them while deciding on the basic issue of validity of the charge sheet and the institution of departmental proceedings. Thus, there is no element of error here. As for the judgments cited by the applicant in the OA, some have been referred to in the order, but not all. The factual matrix of different cases are different and this determines the outcome of a case as also the proposition of law. Hence, in the cited cases where dissimilarity in facts and circumstances in comparison to the present case was patently evident no useful purpose could have been served by alluding to them. It is possible that the review applicant is not satisfied with the interpretation of law in the order passed by the Tribunal but then the remedy lies elsewhere and not in filing for a review. This has been clearly laid down in the case laws cited above.

The applicant in the RA has clearly failed to establish any error apparent on the face of record or the presence of any of the other basic ingredients required for making out a case of review in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above.

The law being clearly binding on us the Review Application fails.

In view of the above, the Review Application is dismissed.