AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This review application has been filed by the Original Applicant seeking review of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed in OA No. 496/2023.
Submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the Consent to Establish (CTE) granted to the Respondent No. 1 had expired and that the Tribunal in the order under review has not considered the effect of expired CTE.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and on perusal of the record, we find that the OA was filed with the prayer to set aside the Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CCA) granted to Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 27.07.2023. The Tribunal in the order dated 05.10.2023 had duly considered the argument of the Applicant that the CCA was granted by CEO-1 who had no jurisdiction and had found this issue in favour of the Applicant and had accordingly set aside the CCA dated 27.07.2023. At that stage, no argument was advanced by the Counsel for the Applicant that the CTE had expired and inspite of that Respondent No. 1 had proceeded with the construction without CTE. In the OA also no such specific ground was raised. Whatever was argued by the Applicant at the time of hearing of the OA, has been duly considered by the Tribunal in the order dated 05.10.2023.
The scope of interference in a review petition is very limited. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Bhanja (Smt.) vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhury (Smt.), AIR 1995 SC 455, that reappreciation of the entire matter is not permissible in review. In the matter of Rajender Kumar & Anr. vs. Rambhai & Ors. (2007) 15 SCC 513, it is settled that only error apparent on the face of record and failure of justice permit review of the order. In terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parsion Devi & Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, error should be self-evident not requiring process of reasoning. The grounds raised by the Applicant in the present review application do not fall in any of the above category.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that since there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the present review petition which is accordingly dismissed.