Ramakrishna Dutta vs Union Of India Through And Ors

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

This Review Application has been filed seeking review of the Tribunal's order dated 31.05.2019 passed in OA Nos.252/2016 with OA No.532/2016, OA No.2739/2016 and RA No.50/2019 in OA No.2739/2016.

At the outset, the review applicant has pointed that there is a typographical error inasmuch as OA No.2379/2016 has been mentioned just above para 28, instead of OA No.2739/2016 in the order under review, which needs to be corrected.

We have perused the review application and found that the applicant has reiterated the grounds already taken in the above cases and no new grounds have been raised, which may warrant review of our order, except the one pertaining to correction of typographical error that has crept in just above para no.28 of the order.

It appears that the applicant in the garb of review is trying to re-argue the matter afresh, which is not the scope of review. It is a well settled principle of law that a review application is not an appeal in disguise or a fresh hearing and for that the proper remedy is to file an appeal before the appropriate forum/superior court.

In case of State of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Kamalsengupta & Anr. [2008(8) SCC 612], the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered the important decisions on the subject and defined the difference between the review and appeal, has held as follows:-

"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 of CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

(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."

It is apparent from the above that the scope of the review has a very narrow compass. It has already been covered that there is a difference between appeal and review, and a review cannot be a disguised appeal.

Having considered the submissions of the review applicant made in the RA and in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant Review application. However, the inadvertent typing error, as pointed out by the review applicant, is allowed to be corrected. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the original order and issue corrected copy of the order to the parties concerned.

In terms of the above order, the RA stands disposed of.