Saturday, November 3, 2012

RA NO.02 / 2012 on ????? -2012



DATED THIS THE                DAY OF .............., 2012


HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR              ...         MEMBER(J)

Sri M.S. Murali,
S/o Late M.K. Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
Accounts Officer,
Sports Authority of India, Bhopal,
presently r/at No.424, 4th Main, BSK 1st Stage,
Srinagar, Bangalore – 50.                                      ...                     Applicant

(By Advocate Shri K. Sreedhara & Associates)


1. The Union of India,
   The Secretary,
   Department of Youth Affairs and Sport,
   Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Director General,
   Sports Authority of India,
   Indira Gandhi Stadium,
   IPA Estate, New Delhi – 110 003.

3. The Director (Personnel and Coaching),
   Sports Authority of India,
   Indira Gandhi Stadium, IPA Estate,
   New Delhi – 110 003.

4. The Director,
   Sports Authority of India,
   NSSC, Kengeri Bangalore                      ...                     Respondents


Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

            This R.A. is filed under Section 22(3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 08.09.2011 passed in OA No.151/2009, by mentioning the grounds in paras 4 to 9. 

2.         The prayer raised in the OA was on the ground that ACP was denied with effect from 12.2.2002 for not having fulfieed the required Bench mark in the ACR and the ACP was actually granted only in 2006.  It was held therein that the applicant was aware of adverse remarks in his ACR.  He was also aware of the decision of the department not to consider him eligible for financial upgradation with effect from 2002.  The upgradation was actually given in 2006 and only then, he filed the OA.  Thus, it has been held that the applicant ought to have raised his objection to the adverse remarks in the ACR as soon as he got to know about them and he had not done so.

3.         In the RA, the applicant has given all the grounds to the effect that the adverse remarks in the ACR were not communicated in time.  These grounds have already been considered at length while passing the order dated 08.09.2011.  The provisions for review is not meant for reiterating the grounds that were already raised in the OA.  The scope and power of the Tribunal is clearly defined under Sec.114 read with Order 47 Rule (1) CPC and it is limited to correction of the patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed to establish.  Review cannot be claimed or asked when it would merely be a fresh hearing of the arguments or for correction of erroneous view taken earlier.

4.         It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court  in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Others  - (1999) 9  SCC 596 held that “power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not absolute  and is the same as  given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47  Rule 1 of CPC”.  It has further held that “the scope of review is limited to correction  of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face, without any elaborate argument being needed to establish it” and that “exercise of power of review on a ground other than those set out in Order 47 Rule 1 amounts to abuse of liberty granted to the Tribunal and hence review cannot be claimed or asked merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or corrections of an erroneous view taken earlier”.

5.         In Union of India Vs Tarit Ranjan Das – 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 – the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the scope of 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 order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits”.

6.         In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another – (2008) 8 SCC 612 – Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to Ajit Kumar Rath's  case (supra) held that an order or decision or judgement cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law and while exercising the power of review the Court/Tribunal concerned cannot sit in an appeal over its judgment/decision”.

7.         The Review Applicant has failed to show any valid reason while seeking to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Tribunal.  If the applicant is aggrieved by the orders of this Tribunal on the ground that the same is erroneous, his remedy lies elsewhere but not a review as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

8.         In view of the above we do not find any valid ground to entertain the RA and accordingly the same is dismissed.

                        (V.AJAY KUMAR)                            (LEENA MEHENDALE)
                            MEMBER(J)                                          MEMBER(A)


No comments:

Post a Comment