AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) :-
This RA has been filed by the applicants in OA under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in OA No.830/2024. The relevant excerpt of the said order in OA reads as under :-
“4.Notice was issued on 30.11.2023 and had been accepted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, at this juncture, new applicants cannot be incorporated into the memo of parties. We explain this legal position to the learned counsel and offer liberty to withdraw the M.A. and file it afresh after omitting the new names. However, learned counsel are not agreeable and pray that we pass an appropriate order. We further clarify that no matter what order we pass, a fresh memo of parties would necessarily have to be submitted. Curiously, the counsel are adamant that they shall not withdraw the M.A. Therefore, we have no option except to dismiss the M.A.
5.In view of the above, O.A. No. 830/2024 too stands disposed of in the absence of any memo of parties. Any other pending M.As. also stand disposed of.”
It is submitted that on 05.03.2024, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Bench suggested the learned counsel for the applicants to withdraw the MA No.762/2024 filed for amendment in the memo of parties and move a fresh one after omitting new names. It is submitted that the learned counsel for the applicants at that time expressed his difficulty to withdraw the MA, as the same was accompanied by 68 original authority letters of the applicants from all over the Country and in case of withdrawal, he had to obtain all those letters once again and further delay could have prejudiced the case of the applicants. It is also submitted that the learned counsel for the applicants again made an attempt to convey this difficulty and submitted his willingness to file fresh memo of parties after removing names of new applicants and requested the Bench that prayer ‘d’ of the MA be allowed, however, the Bench dismissed both the MA and OA.
It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in not allowing prayer ‘d’ in the MA to the extent of taking the original authority letters on record. By way of this RA, the review applicants seek that the RA be allowed and the OA may be restored to its original position. It is also submitted that technical and procedural defects cannot come in the way of substantial justice.
The learned counsel for the applicants moved MA No.762/2024 in the OA (under Diary No.9687/2023) seeking amendment in the memo of parties, impleading two more applicants who were not party in the original memo of parties. Since the notices had already been issued to the respondents in the OA (under Diary No.9687/2023) on 30.11.2023, therefore, impleading new applicants, at that stage, was not possible. Order dated 30.11.2023 of the Tribunal reads as under :-
“Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, we issue notice to the respondents. Mr. S Rajappa, learned counsel and Mr. H K Gangwani, learned counsel, appear and accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively. Stand over to 18.12.2023.”
However, the learned counsel for the applicants was reluctant to move fresh memo of parties. In our opinion, this is not the ground for moving a Review Application. We offered liberty to the learned counsel for the applicants to withdraw the MA explaining him the legal position, however, he was not ready to withdraw the MA and prayed for passing orders. It is a well settled law that no case can be heard/taken into consideration without putting the necessary parties on record and that is why the OA was disposed of alongwith MA in the absence of ‘memo of parties’.
We have carefully considered the contentions raised in the Review Application and examined the order against which the review has been sought. According to us, there is no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review.
There is no finding of fact or law in the Order under review that may define an error in the order, which could be the trigger for filing the present Review Application. The learned counsel for the applicant himself confirmed that the contents of the impugned order are correct. The learned counsel for the review applicant is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.
The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in :-
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that
“the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision.” At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
“(i)The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application.
We are convinced that as there is no finding of fact or law, there cannot be an error with respect to the same warranting interference in the order through the exercise of review jurisdiction.
The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.