AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The review applicant is the petitioner in W.P.No.27513 of 2012. In the said writ petition, he made a challenge to the communication of the 1st respondent dated 24.4.2012 in Roc.No.209/2012/RTI and directing the 2nd respondent to furnish information as per his request made in RTI Application dated 09.4.2012. W.P.No.27513 of 2012, came to be dismissed on 25.10.2013 and to review the said order, the review applicant has filed the present review application.
Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant has vehemently contended that the reason for compulsorily retiring the review applicant, is based on the latest vigilance report and inspite of his request, it was not furnished and if the said information is furnished, he may be able to work out his further remedy in accordance with law.
It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the review applicant on attaining the age of 50 years, was compulsorily retired by invoking FR 56(2) in G.O.Ms.No.1365 Public (Special A) Department, dated 10.9.2004 and challenging the legality of the same, he filed W.P.No.31031 of 2004 and the said writ petition, came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.6.2006. Challenging the said order passed in W.P.No.31031 of 2004 dated 30.6.2006, the review applicant has filed SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16500 of 2006 and it was also dismissed on 16.10.2006. Thereafter, the review applicant has filed application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain documents, including the latest vigilance report and since, it has not been furnished, he came forward with the writ petition and the review application.
Mr. P. K. Rajagopal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that whatever the materials available on the file of the respondents, have been furnished. The learned counsel would submit that review applicant cannot re-open the issue once again when the matter has reached finality by virtue of dismissal of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16500 of 2006, dated 16.10.2006 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and prays for dismissal of the review application.
This Court, carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of papers.
In Page Nos.18 to 24 of the typed set of papers filed along with this review application, the vigilance report relating to the review applicant as well as the work done statement have been furnished to the review applicant.
It is a settled position of law that in the case of compulsory retirement, the over all service record of the concerned official have to be taken into consideration and the over all service record of the review applicant have been placed before the Full Court of this Court where a decision was taken to compulsorily retire the review applicant and it was also put to challenge by the review applicant by filing W.P.No.31031 of 2004, which has ended dismissal on 30.6.2006 and the SLP in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16500 of 2006 filed by the review applicant was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 16.10.2006.
It is a well settled position of law that the scope of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. is very limited and unless the error is apparent on the face of record, review cannot be entertained. It is also a trite law that review application, cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.
In the light of the well settled legal position coupled with the factual aspects, this Court is of the view that the review application lacks merit and substance and deserves for dismissal. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs.