AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
This Review Application has been filed by the applicants (respondents in OA) seeking review of the order dated 24.04.2024, passed in Original Application No.203/341/2023 on the grounds stated in the Review Application.
From perusal of the order under review, it is found that the aforesaid OA No.203/341/2023 was disposed of with the consent of both the parties as the counsel for the respondents did not object to the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant to conduct PET of the respondent (original applicant) with a time frame.
In the garb of the present Review Application, the respondents are praying for rehearing of the matter on the ground that the learned Deputy Solicitor General, who had appeared for the respondents, had neither knowledge of detailed reply filed by them nor had obtained any instructions from Department before making such submissions.
It may be noted that the power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule (1) of the CPC. None of the grounds raised in the Review Application brings it within the scope and purview of review. If in the opinion of the Review Applicants the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere. Moreover, the Original Application No.203/341/2023 was disposed of after recording the consent of both the parties.
On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: “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”. This Tribunal cannot review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the Hon’ble Apex court in the said case that: “[A]ny 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”.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (1) SCC 170 Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) observed that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured in a review proceeding.
It is also settled principle of law that the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate court for reviewing the original order. This proposition of law is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 wherein their lordships have held as under:
“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 by a fresh order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application”.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:
“35.The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(i)The power of the Tribunal to review its 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 CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii)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.
(viii)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.”
In view of the law noticed hereinabove and in view of the fact that existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order and since the Review Applicants have failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the order under review, the present Review Application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Review Application is dismissed at the circulation stage itself.