AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member
The Review Application (R.A) No.180/13/2022 has been filed by the respondents in the O.A to review the order of this Tribunal dated 23.8.2017 in O.A No.180/107/2017.
When the matter came up for consideration today, it is noticed that the Original Application (O.A) had been disposed of on 23.8.2017 by a Single Bench and the Member who passed the order had retired. The respondents in the O.A filed the R.A on 28.6.2018 i.e, after ten months time, seeking review of the order passed by the above mentioned Single Bench. The Registry of the Tribunal returned the same noting that the R.A filed is time barred. The counsel then re-presented the R.A along with an M.A 180/608/2021 for condoning the delay on 16.1.2019 (i.e. after another 6 months). The M.A was found defective and again was returned to the counsel for curing the defects. However, the same was not cured in time. The counsel re-presented the R.A along with an M.A 180/609/2021 for condoning the delay in re-presentating the R.A which is a delay of 1247 days in curing the defects, on 5.8.2021 i.e, after 30 months.
The Review respondent has entered his appearance through Adv.Mr.P.K.Muhammed. The Review Respondent filed a counter affidavit on 2.11.2021 stating that none of the review applicants in this matter have so far filed an affidavit pointing out any illegalities in the original order in the O.A, which was passed long after granting enough and more opportunity for them to substantiate the reasons to oppose the prayer in the O.A. Further, the order was passed after relying on a large number of decisions of the Apex Court.
I have heard both sides and perused the records and examined whether sufficient grounds have been preferred for the condonation of delay in the matter.
At the outset, it is to be noted that there had been a delay of 265 days in filing the Review Application. Further, there has been another 1247 days delay in representing the review application after curing the defects. The reasons submitted like the pandemic etc are not justifiable considering that these delays start from much before the pandemic period. It appears on the other hand that the respondents are trying to avoid implementation of the Order of the Tribunal. The counsel for review respondent also objected to the Review Application stating that if any of the parties were aggrieved by an order passed by this Tribunal, their remedy is to file an Appeal and not to file a Review Application like this at a belated stage.
In (1997) 6 SCC 473 in the case of K.Ajit Babu & Others Vs. Union of India & Others it was held that :
…......Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. …...... The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should be an end to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation.
It is clear from the facts of this matter that there has been inordinate delay and laches on the part of the review applicants/respondents in the O.A to prosecute the matter in time. As stated, the reasons for the delay occurring in filing the R.A as well as the delay occurring in re-presenting the R.A are not sufficiently explained in Miscllaneous Application Nos.608/2021 and 609/2021. Whatever explanations are preferred are not justifiable or acceptable. This Tribunal notes that the review applicants have approached much after the expiry of the time prescribed for filing R.A in Rule 17(1) of C.A.T (Procedure) Rules, 1987. On that ground also the review application is not maintainable. Hence, the Miscellaneous Applications are not allowed. In view of the above, on the ground of unjustified and unacceptable delay, the R.A is also dismissed. No costs.