Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. K.C. Rakesh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 29 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi RA No.336/2011 O.A.No.2521/2011 MA No.2596/2011 New Delhi this the 29th day of September, 2011. HONBLE MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J) Dr. K.C. Rakesh, S/o late Sh. Leeladhar, R/o C-13/86, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-85. -Applicant -Versus- 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 (through its Commissioner). 2. Smt. Indira Yadav, Director (Pry. Edn.) (Retd.) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 3. The Additional Commissioner, (Engineering & Personnel) (C.E.D.), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 4. The Director, Personnel, C.E.D., Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 5. The Accounts & Finance Branch, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 6. The Director (P.E.), Education Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukherjee, Civic Center Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. -Respondents ORDER (By Circulation)
Applicant has filed this RA against the order dated 08.08.2011, whereby this Tribunal has dismissed the OA. As can be seen from the grounds raised in the RA applicant has made a grievance that the matter has not been correctly decided. In the garb of review, applicant wants to re-hear the matter on merits, whereas this Tribunal has dismissed the OA being time barred and also that there was unintentional delay on the part of the respondents to pay retiral benefits to the applicant. In case the judgment rendered by this Tribunal is wrong, remedy lies elsewhere and certainly review is not the remedy.
2. Power of review available to an Administrative Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person, on 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 order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. 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. The expression any other sufficient reason used in Order 47, Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.
3. Further, the term mistake or error apparent by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Order 1 CPC or Section 22 (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment 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. While exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. If the matter is considered in the aforesaid legal proposition, we are of the view that the applicants have not made out any case for reviewing the judgment dated 2.8.2011.
4. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed, in circulation, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(M.L. Chauhan) Member (J) San.