Raj Vir Sharma, J
1. We have carefully perused the records of OA No.865 of 2016 and of the present RA.
2. The review petitioner was applicant in OA No. 865 of 2016.
The present review application has been filed by him under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section
22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the Tribunal dismissing OA No.865 of 2016
as being devoid of any merit.
3. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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.
Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error, or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
4. In Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the scope for review is rather limited,
and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate court in respect of the original order, by a fresh order and
rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
5. In State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735, the Hon’ble Apex Court has scanned its various
earlier judgments and summarized the following principles:
“35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(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 CPC.
(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 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€
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & others, 2013(8) SCC 32,0 has laid down theÂ
following contours with regard to maintainability, or otherwise, of review petition:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:
i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason†have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 122) and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526 t)o mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the ruleâ€. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
(23013(8) SCC 337).
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice.
v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.
ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.â€
7. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions, let us consider the claim ofÂ
the review petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out by him for review of the order dated 27.3.2018 passed in OA No.865 of 2016.
8. After going through the records of OA No.865 of 2016 and of the present R.A., we have found that the applicant-review petitioner has more or
less repeated his old arguments which have been overruled by the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.3.2018(ibid). The orders and judgment, copies
whereof have been filed by the applicant along with the RA, were passed by the Tribunal and by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in different
context, and were not cited by the applicant at the time of hearing on OA No.865 of 2016. In any event, those decisions of the Tribunal and of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras do not go to support the claim of the applicant-review petitioner. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. The appreciation of evidence/materials on record, being fully
within the domain of the appellate court, cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. In a review petition, it is not open to the Tribunal to
re-appreciate the evidence/materials and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of
evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there
is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. The applicant-review petitioner has not shown any material error,
manifest on the face of the order dated 27.3.2018(ibid), which undermines its soundness, or results in miscarriage of justice. If the applicant-review
petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible for
the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.
9. In the light of what has been discussed above, we have found no merit in the R.A. which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of circulation.
