CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
REVIEW
APPLICATION NO.04/2012
IN
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)
Vs.
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)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment