CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.04/2012
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.39/2009
DATED THIS THE DAY OF ........., 2012
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
Shri Basappa, S/o Mallappa Mirje,
aged about 59 years,
# 29/1, 4th Floor, 1st Cross,
Model Colony, Yeshwantpur,
Bangalore – 560 022. ... Applicant
(By Advocate M/s. Panchajanya Associates)
1. The Director General,
National Water Development Agency,
18-20, Community Centre, Saket,
New Delhi – 110 017.
2. The Union of India by its Secretary to the
Ministry of Water Resources,
Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance, (Deptt. of Expenditure),
North Block, New Delhi -m 110 001. ... Respondents
O R D E R (BY CIRCULATION)
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale Member (J):
This R.A. is filed under Section 22(3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 28.12.2011 passed in OA No.39/2009.
2. In the R.A., he has filed the following prayer:
“(a) To call for the records in OA No.39/2009 disposed of on 28.12.2011 on the file of this Tribunal and on perusal of the same in the light of the facts stated and the grounds urged, review its order records in OA No.39/2009 disposed of on 28.12.2011 and set aside the same;
(b) to direct the respective parties to the OA 39/2009 to address their arguments afresh on the merits of the case and thereafter to decide the OA No.39/2009 on merits in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The applicant is seeking this review in OA No.39/2009 by mentioning the grounds at paras 3 to 20 and these grounds are already raised in the OA and have been considered.
4. The applicant at para (c) at page 2, insist on his own understanding of the Rule as far as the first schedule of the Pay Commission is concerned and we have squarely dealt with this issue in the judgment. The other paras too have already been raised and considered in the OA.
5. The present review is filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The scope and power of this Tribunal under this Section is limited and akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. As per the settled principles of law while exercising the power of review, correction of an erroneous view taken earlier is not permissible.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajik 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”.
7. The scope of Review has also been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in:
(a) Union of India Vs Tarit Ranjan Das – 2004 SCC (L&S) 160
(b) State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another – (2008) 8 SCC 612
and in those matters also, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in 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.
8. 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.
9. 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)