Roop Narain Meena vs Union Of India & Others

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

The present Review Application is filed by the Review Applicant seeking review of the Order dated 12.3.2019 passed in OA 2047/2017 and MA

2238/2017 by us.

We have perused the said Order under Review. The grounds taken in the present Review Application are not based on any error apparent on the

face of record as this Court specifically held that there was no averment which proves that the applicant was diligently pursuing his matter and was

prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the OA within the permissible time as per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In fact,

the review applicant is questioning the conclusion arrived at by this Bench in the said Order. If we agree to his prayer, we would be going into the

merits of the case again and re-writing another judgment of the same case. By doing so, we would be acting as an appellate authority, which is not

permissible in review. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, [AIR 1979 SC 1047, ]the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has observed as follows:-

It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to

preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which is inherent in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or

to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may

be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the

person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error

apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the

decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power

which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all matters or errors committed by the Subordinate Court.

Again in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others, 1999 (9) SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114

read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the

application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his

knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or

error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. 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. It may be pointed out that the expression ""any

other sufficient reason"" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.

Any 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.

[Emphasis added]

In the case of Gopal Singh vs. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn. and others, (2007 (9) SCC 369, )the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as

follows:-

The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own judgment.

Even after the microscopic examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole judgment as to how the review

was justified and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an

appellate authority over its own judgment. This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal has

traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not

address us on this very vital aspect.

It is trite law that RTI Application, representation and legal notice would not extend the period of limitation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in catena of judgments.

Thus, on the basis of the above citations and observations made hereinabove, we come to the conclusion that it was not open to the review

applicant to question the decision taken by this Tribunal. In fact, he could have only pointed out any error apparent on the face of record, which has

not been done in any of the grounds taken in the Review Application rather the review applicant in the garb of present review application is trying to

re-argue the whole case, which is not permissible in view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such this Review

Application is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.