Ramesh Chander Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

The facts, in brief, are that while deciding the Original Application (OA) bearing No.1359/2014, this Tribunal considered all the issues raised by the Review Applicant and disposed of the same on merits on 21.08.2018 (Annexure RA-1) wherein the following orders were passed:-

"11. It is quite clear from the above that as per his service record w.e.f. 31.12.2012 to 01.06.2014, the applicant had never taken any leave from office and had been attending to his official duties without interruption and that there is no recurring cause of action. Hence, the explanations furnished by the applicant for the abnormal delay of about 17 months in filing this OA are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the applicant deserves any indulgence either in condoning the delay or in entertaining the OA.

A careful perusal of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattarchargee (supra) and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others (supra) wherein it was categorically held that the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration and the fundamental principles that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach and with the increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter, and lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed off and the court is not expected to give indolent persons who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle', wherein such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone, the courts should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.

Hence, in view of the facts of the present case, the OA cannot be entertained after a lapse of unexplainable delay. Accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons mentioned above, the MA as well as OA are dismissed. No costs."

Now the Review Applicant has filed the present RA bearing No.177/2018 for reviewing the indicated order, mainly on the grounds which have already been considered by this Tribunal while deciding the main OA.

It is well settled principle of law that the earlier order can only be reviewed if the case squarely falls within the legal ambit of review and not otherwise. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regulates the provisions of review of the orders. According to the said provision, a review will lie only when there is discovery of any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by the review applicant seeking the review at the time when the order was passed or made on account ofsome mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

It is now well settled principle of law that 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 and re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 715, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999) 9 SCC 596, Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 and Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Association & Others (2007) 9 SCC 369.

An identical question came up to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612. Having interpreted the scope of review and considering the catena of previous judgments mentioned therein, the following principles were culled out to review the orders:-

"(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".

Meaning thereby, the original order can only be reviewed if case strictly falls within the domain of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and not otherwise. In the instant RA, the review applicant has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of record warranting a review of the order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure RA-1). Moreover, the issues now sought to be urged, were subject matter of the OA and have already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no apparent error on the face of record, hence no ground is made out to entertain the present Review Application, which is accordingly dismissed in circulation. No costs.