Sunil Kumar, S/o. Sh. Mahavir vs Union Of India & Others

Ashish Kalia, Member J

The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant in OA No.2364/2015 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated

19.02.2020. The operative portion of the order passed by this Tribunal reads as under:

“5. After considering the rival contentions, this Tribunal is of the strong opinion that reasons have been sufficiently described to the applicant. This

issue comes to an end after the SLP (C) No.706/2014 filed by UOI was allowed and hence no more application of mind is required.â€​

Learned counsel for the applicant in this RA prayed for review of the above order passed by this Tribunal stating that the same is contrary to law.

MA No.5/2022 has also been filed seeking to condone the delay of 58 days in filing the R.A.

We have perused the pleadings on record.

It is well settled with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu &Ors. vs Union of India &Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 473] that delay

in filing Review Application cannot be condoned. The Apex Court in the above said case observed as under:

“..........The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited

grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be

applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it

would be an appeal and there would be no certainly of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed

within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is

permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said

decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should

been to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of

review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the code of Civil Procedure is filed within the period of

limitation.â€​

Therefore, the Review Application in praesenti is not maintainable on account of delay occurred in filing the same.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal &Ors. vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr.[2008 (2) SCC 735] held as under with regard to

review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:

“(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 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 a 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.â€​

Here, the review applicant contended that the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgement in Dev Dutt vs UOI & Another was

misconceived, misquoted and misread by the Tribunal without pointing out any error apparent on the face of the record or any other circumstances

that would warrant a review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

After duly examining the rival contentions of the parties and the material placed on record, this Tribunal passed its order in the Original Application.

Scope for this Tribunal in Review Applications is very limited. Merits of the case will not be gone into while adjudicating R.A. We find that there is no

error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, MA & RA are dismissed.