Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Balak Ram Son Of Late Tilak Ram vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 22 February, 2012
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 22nd Day of February, 2012
Honble Mr. Shashi Prakash- AM
Review Application No. 64 of 2010
In
Original Application No. 604 of 2008
Balak Ram Son of late Tilak Ram, Resident of Village Niyamatpur Dhilawali, Post-Paithan, District-Farrukhabad.
. Applicant
By Advocate: Shri A. K. Trivedi
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs North Block, New Delhi 110001.
3. Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Ranch Zone, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Revenue Building Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna (Bihar) 800 001.
5. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs 143 New Baradwari, Post Office Sakehi, Jamshedpur.
6. Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Central Revenue Building Bir Chand, Patel Path, Patna (Bihar).
.. . Respondents
By Advocate: Shri S.N. Chatterji
O R D E R
Through this Review Application, the applicant has sought to review the Tribunals order dated 03.09.2010 passed in O.A. No.604 of 2008 (Balak Ram v. Union of India & Ors) by which the aforesaid Original Application was dismissed.
2. The ground taken by the applicant for reviewing the order dated 03.09.2010 is that there is an apparent error on the fact of record in the order stating that during the proceedings on 08.12.2009, counsel for the parties had jointly stated that the pleadings are complete in this case and the case is ripe for hearing. Since no Rejoinder Affidavit had been filed in the case, and the averments made in Para 8 of the counter affidavit has not been denied. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit after serving the copy of the same to the counsel for the Respondents and a receipt to this effect was received from the office of this Tribunal. He further contended that the contention of Para-6 of the judgment during the proceedings on 08.12.2009 counsel for the parties has jointly stated that the pleadings are complete in this case and the case is ripe for hearing. is erroneous, inasmuch as, in case, the Rejoinder Affidavit had not been filed by the applicant the pleadings could not be treated as complete. It is only after receipt of Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits that the pleadings are taken to be complete and the case is listed for hearing only thereafter. In the context of this fact, the finding of the judgment dated 03.09.2009 needs to be reviewed. Learned counsel further argued that the written statement submitted by him has not been taken into account while passing the order.
3. Shri S.N. Chatterji, learned counsel for the respondents argued that it has been specifically stated in the order dated 03.09.2009 that counsel for the parties has stated that pleadings are complete and the case is ripe for final hearing. It is on the basis of the statement made by counsel for both the parties that the Tribunal proceeded to hear the O.A. and passed order under review. Therefore, the contention of the applicant does not have any substance.
4. Heard counsel for the parties. A bare reading of the relevant part of the order under Review clearly indicates that counsel for both side had specifically submitted to the Tribunal on 08.12.2010 that the pleadings in this O.A. are complete and therefore, the case is ripe for final hearing. Therefore, on the statement made by counsel for the parties, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter and disposed it of. Further, after completion of the hearing, the Tribunal provided four weeks time to both the parties to file written statement. It is seen from the record that written statement had been filed by the counsel for the applicant on 14.06.2010. It is expected that all the points which the applicant would have raised in his purported R.A. must have been incorporated in the written statement and it is only after considering the written statement of the applicant the Tribunal arrived at finding of the order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was deprived an opportunity to file his reply to the Counter Affidavit.
5. From the foregoing facts, it is evident that the Court had taken all the facts into account while dismissing the O.A. and there is no error apparent on the face of record.
6. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Shashi Prakash) Member-A Sushil ??
??
??
??
Page 3 of 3