AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The review application is filed by the applicants/ appellants under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Section 19 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to review the Judgement in the appeal dated 13.02.2017 and to allow the Appeal No.121 of 2016.
Under Section19(4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, the Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under the Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a civil suit in respect of the matters enumerated under clause (a) to (k). Clause (f) is the power to review its own decision. Therefore, under Section 19(4)(f), the Tribunal is competent to review its own decision and while considering an application to review, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules, 2011 contemplates that an application for review shall not be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Under Sub Rule (3), unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal sitting at the concerned place, a review application shall be disposed of by circulation and the Tribunal may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the opposite party. Sub Rule (5) mandates that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is supported by a duly sworn affidavit indicating therein the source of knowledge, personal or otherwise and also those which are sworn on the basis of the legal advice.
The scope of review under the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and it is not equivalent to the powers of appeal. In a review application the order sought to be reviewed cannot be reviewed on the ground that the decision is wrong on the materials available on record or the law. The remedy in such cases is only an appeal and not review. Notice in the application for review has to be ordered, only if the Tribunal finds necessary grounds or materials to direct notice to the opposite parties. The Tribunal is competent to dispose the review application by circulation. Only if it is found that there is merit in the application, notice to the opposite parties needs to be ordered.
On going through the application especially the grounds taken for review, we find no reason to direct notice to the respondents or to review the impugned Judgement. Though the applicants contended that consequent to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, to file an application before the National Green Tribunal, the findings against the applicants in the earlier Judgement in Appeal Nos.21 of 2013 and 56 of 2013 would not operate as resjudicata, we can not agree with the submissions. What was permitted to be withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not the Appeal Nos.21 of 2013 and 56 of 2013 filed by the appellants challenging the Environmental Clearance, but the Civil Appeal No.40770 of 2015 challenging the findings in the Judgement in those appeals against the appellants. By withdrawing the Civil Appeal no liberty was sought or granted to challenge the findings against the applicants in the Judgment in Appeal Nos.21 of 2013 and 56 of 2013. Therefore, we cannot agree with the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that in spite of the findings in the Judgement in Appeal Nos.21 of 2013 and 56 of 2013, the appellants are entitled to reagitate the same question once again before the Tribunal, in the appeal filed challenging the Environmental Clearance granted dated 31.12.2012 and revalidation of the Environmental Clearance dated 30.03.2016.
Under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure to review the Judgement there should either be discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which inspite of exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced earlier or there should be some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient cause. There is no such case of apparent error on the face of record or discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced or made when the Judgement was pronounced earlier. We find no such allegation in the application.
We have carefully gone through the grounds taken and find that based on the grounds, the Judgement dated 13.02.2017 cannot be reviewed. All the aspects have been considered and decided in those appeals. The applicants are not entitled to challenge the Judgment on merits in the application for review of the Judgement. We find no apparent error on the face of the records or any other sufficient cause to review the Judgement as sought for.
The application under review is therefore dismissed on circulation with no order as to costs.