Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr Debabrata Chatterjee vs C S I R on 10 December, 2018
9 J
■I
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRtBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH An Application under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure Rules), 1987 R.A. No.35fc/floojg0f20i8 In O.A. No. 608 of 2018 Dr. Debabrata Chatterjee, son of Late. Khagendranath Chatterjee, by Occupation Retired from Service, and residing at Gopinathpur, Sagarbhanga, Police Station
- Coke Oven, Durgapur ~ 713211, District .
- Burdwan, West - Bengal.-
CP Versus 1, The Union of India, service through the Secretary, Department of Scientific and • Industrial Research, Government of India, New Delhi - 110011;
r ■ i 1 7 U.-
2. Council for Scientific and Industrial '• Research, through the Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),' Anusandhan Bhawan 2, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi - 110001;
3. The Director CSIR - Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, having its office at Mahatma Gandhi Avenue Durgapur, Pin - 713209, West Bengal;
4. The Administrative Officer, CS1R- Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI), Durgapur, M. G. Avenue, Durgapur - 713209,- District - Burdwan, West Bengal;
5. Finance and Accounts Officer, CSIR- Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI), Durgapur M. G. Avenue, Durgapur - 713209 District - Burdwan, West Bengal;
Applicants i 1 I ?• /' // CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH i/ R. A/350/00018/20L8 Date of Order: 10.12.2018 (OA/350/00608/2018) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. A.K Patnaik, judicial Member Dr. Debabrata Chatterjee (Applicant/Review Respondent) © Vs. UOI&Ors. (Respondents/Review Applicants) For the Applicant(s): None For the Respondent(s):
v- 5 iOn Circulation)
^ Q
i- X5
A.tC Patnaik. Member (JY: C C
As per Rules this Ah CJ
asLeer^maded^on-circulation. Perused the records. .*/>>
2. The order date* v0fe0!!8^ff'9OA'j<fo. 350/00608/2018 has been sought to be reviewed in this Review Application filed by the Respondent- Department.
3. The order sought to be reviewed in this RA is a reasoned and detailed order passed after giving due opportunities to both the parties.
The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether this RA can be entertained in view of the principles set out in order 47 Rule 1 CPC in which it has been provided as under:
"Any person considering himself aggrieved- fl •y 2 / .r
a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, ! / b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the^dStfe^OMnade the order."
From the above it is^ystaL^1S3S^hat a-nsv,iew is' maintainable on the following grounds, as stipifrate Jstafti € C m 3
i) Discovd^ of ng ■r^portaiSimafter or evidence which, after \he dikgence , was not within knowledg he^petitione^orycould not r be produced by him;
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) Any other sufficient reason. It is not the case of the applicant in this RA that any error was crept in the final order which is contrary to the record. In fact, as we find that the applicant virtually through this Review Application seeks of a rehearing of the entire matter which is not permissible under the law.
The Applicant himself has admitted in this RA that judicial proceeding vide FAT No. 420/217 is filed and the same is pending against him. 3 4, The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Bench, on numerous occasions, had deliberated upon the very same issue, arriving at the conclusion that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389-AIR 1979 SC 1047, the apex court held that there are definite limits to the exercise of power of review. In that case, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Procedure was filed which was allowed and the order passed by the Judicial CommfssipnerHyas set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. On an appeal't^S^ap^lbjart, if^as held as under:
<9 "It isitrae a( DS.eiwg d5v| thisiGpurt in Shivdeo Singh v State of Punjag thFrej is --------=........----------
nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution roAreclu^^ Higfil Court from exercising the power of r^vi^S^SMhM^^^\in/every court of plenary jurisdiction to Vevlnnniscarri^e^f'justice or to correct grave and palpable errors eoi^ii®#ib)^1^Bmfnhere are definite limits to the exercise of the pc^er^aOSSe'^r The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was riot within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable ah appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
{Emphasis added) The judgment in Aribam Case, AIR 1979 SC 1047, has been followed in the case of Meera Bhanja, AIR 1995 SC 455. In that case, it has been reiterated V ►.
7> 4 that an eiror apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to i review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning.
5. In Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held as under:-
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule J. CPC it is not^peflnilsiBle^for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected^it must be remembered has a limited purpose and c^rt^St te^Tl^e^to^BejJ^n appeal in disguise".
/>#' '
tr
f- thI g & \
6. The above beiftg I^find no ground to entertain
Q V/lxvOy & 1
£
this Review Application XwhidQV^cSfdin^^dismissed. Inform the parties // & accordingly.
r 'X_'- c.
(A.K.Patnaik) .
Member (Judl.)
RK/PS