Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
D/O Revenue vs Shri Chanchal Nag on 8 June, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINI ISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | GUWAHATI BENCH Misc Appl ication No. 040/001 40/2019 Re Review Application No. 040/00009/2019 in Origine' Application No. 040/00063/2017 THE HON' BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE HON'BLE MR.N. NEIHSIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Union of india & Ors _. Petitioners-Resoondents -Versus- Sri Chanchal Nag ... Opposite party-Applicant = stern: ee Sri ov K Bhatra, = ae | eee $.C.GS.C. po ne a For the Opposi ite Party- -applicont: SiG J Sharma Date of hearing: 29.05.2020 --»- Date of Order, @ 08. ORDER MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J):
By MA, No.040/00140/2019 the petitioners pray for condonation of delay of 768 days in filing ihe RA _ | MA 040/001 40/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 Haren i (in OA.040/00063/2017) 2 No.040/00009/2019 whereby he has sought recall/review the order dated 04.08.2017 passed in OA. No.040/00063/2017.
2. We. have gone through the MA _ seeking condor ation of Gel ay. The main ground set forth in the MA seeking condonation | is that in view of the new develooment and subsequent the misc petitioners were Pi revented py sufficient and reasonable cause in preferri ng the RA within the time limit.
3. Rule 7 of the CAT Procedure} Rules, 1987 is very specific on. the subject, The same is quoted as under 'V7. Application for review. - {1} No application for review shall be entertained _ unless itis filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed, 4, whe ratte came up for consideration of MA for céndonation of delay before the court on- Fama aa thw aN Velie. ese rRlrPlk., 29.04. 2020, In: the absence of any provision of condosatic ion of delay in the CAT (Procedure) Rutfes, 1987, Sei V.K.Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC appecring for MA,040/00140/19 (RA.040/00009/20) Oe (in OA.040/00063/201 9}
7) the petitioners was specifically asked as to whether the Tribunal can condone ihe delay in filing the RA, learned Sr. CGSC submitted that there is a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court which held that CAT C.GS.C. prayed for few days to time to produce the judgment.
5. Sri G. J Sharma, learned counsel appearing for .. the opposite parly/original party, on the other hand, submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the RA. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel also prayed for few days time to produce authority.
é. Accord ngly. matier was reserved for orders and teamed counsels for the parties were granted time to produce the judgment by 2r¢ June, 2020. 2 Si EK Bhatra, Jeomed sr CGSC, filed the "following decision of the Full Bench of the ron bie Calcutta High Court:
MA, 040/001 40/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 (In OA.040/00063/2017} 4
a) Uni inion of India. vs Ceniral Administrative rlounal, (2003) 2 SCT 301.
8, _-Beared counsel for the opposite party, onthe the contention that CAT has no jurisdiction to condone fhe del ay in filing ihe RAS {i} Order dated 02.03. 20] 6 of the Lucknow Bench of ini is Tibunal In RA. 35200006/201 6 (OA.523/201 4) fii) sesginon of Hon'ble High Court of Judi cate, Apna Pradesh at Hyderabad in G Norasimha Ra0 vs Regional Joint Director of schoo! Liquidator of 'Almrich Pharmaceuticals Lid. ana others (dated 24.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No.16962 of oe MA2040/00140/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 ee [in OA.040/00063/2017} 5 7, We have gone through the cited cases. In the cited case by the learned SC.GS.C. for the review applicant, the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Courf had considered the issue wheiner CAT has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing RA. Having considered all the aspects of the matter the Full Bench held that ihe tribunal is conferred with power under the Act and Rules to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing a review application despite Rule 17 of the said Rules: The decision of the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court is dated 08.10.2002. 10, On the otner hand, in the order dated 02.03.2016 passed in RA.6/2016 (cited by the opposite party}, fhe Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal has _ recorded as under:-
"4, By means of the present review application, the applicant tied to re-open the entire issue afresh and if is also fo be indicated that an:
erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of power of review and review cannot pertake the character of an appeal and it is also to be indicated that review is nof the remedy. fer the .applicant fo correct an erroneous judgment. The Tribunal has no power to review its judgment if there is no error apparent on the face of record.
MA.040/00140/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 | {in OA,040/00063/2017) He eg. If is. undisputed that the present review nH application js filed beyond the period of Amilolion as s provided under the AT Act.
6. in the case of K.Aiit Babu ve. Uni ion I India provisions sof section. 22(3K(6 a the AT Act and Rule. 17(1) of CAT (Procedure} Rules and also order 47 Rule | of CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court igid down that right of review is available fo the postieved -person on restricted groune . Andhra Pradesh High Court in. the case of G. Naras! mha RAG Vs, Regional Joint Directror of School Education, Warangal and others -
Z005(4) SLR 720. The matier was also examined 'by the Full Bench with reference to Section 2213) (f} of the AT Act, 1985 and other relevant cree ions of the CAT ores pues, Lae bree that a 'Triounal has no jurisdiction to condone ihe delay in fil ing the Revi ew Application. lf was aid. down thai the Triounal will) not have srsch cllon to condone the delay by faking aid nd assistance. of either sub section (3) of Section. 21 of the Act or Section 2912) of the Limitation Act. t may be mentioned here that provisions of Rule 19 of A.P, Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 which are similar fto-above Rule 17{1} of CAT (Procedure) . Rules, 1987 were also considered whi ch are as under gee No application for review shall be. re "Ai entertained unless it Is filed within 30 days . _ --- frorn the date of receipt of copy of the a ose ft sought to be revi iewed. "
apo ica on is fled within the period of limitation. . ve . m MA.040/00 140/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 {In OA.040/00063/20 17} @ The. decision given. by the Trounal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. . If such a power to review is permitted without any limitation then no decision would be final because the decision. would be subject to review at any time at the instance of the party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been 'given cannot monitor the case for all times fo come, Therefore, the public policy demands that there should be an end to legal cases."
(emphasis supplied) A In Narasimha Rao (supra), the Full Bench of the | my Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh considefed the issue whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone meitter with reference to Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act, 1985 and other relevant provisions of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, provision of the Limitation Act etc. and held that a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing review application, If was 'laid down by the Full Bench that the Tribunal would . nei have jurisdiction fo condone the delay by faking bie aid and assistance of either sub-section {3} of Section - 21 of the Act or Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The other two decisions of ine Hon' bie Supreme Court MA, 040/00140/1 9 & RA.040/00009/2019 (In OA,040/00063/2017} 8
1) From the above cited cases, it is apparent that ay 2 two Full Benches of different High Courts have taken any 'provisions prescribed for condoning the delay either in the Act or in the Rules, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction fo condone the delay taking aid and assistance of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the premised thet Limitation Act is made applicable in view of Section 29(2} of the Limitation Act. Admittedly, | | (In OA.040/00063/2017) "Bike as Court is of subsequent date that the Hon'ble Caicuita 'High Court, Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ihe case of K Ajit Babu vs UO! (1997) 6 SCC 473 while considering the power of Tribunal fo exercise review | | - under Rule 17 of the CAT {Procedure} Rules, held that the right of review is avaliable if such an application is filed within the period. of limitation. The aforesaid decision of 'the Hon' ble Supreme Court was not considered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while passing ihe order dated 08,10.2002(supra). As already quoted above, the Lucknow Bench had already heid that if power to review is permitted withoui any _ {imitation then no decision would be final because the ' decision would be subject to review at any fime at. the instance of the party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. That apart, ihe delay in filing the present RA is 768 days. :
11, In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble supreme Cour and the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, we have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any provision under the Administrative eyl by MA040/00140/19 & RA.040/00009/2019 | [In OA.040/00063/2017) 10 ey:
"Ube aE . Tribunals Act, 1985 or in the CAT (Procedure) Rules, RA. Accordingly, MA for condenation of délay in filing the RA is dismissed. Resultantly, RA is also dismissed.
(BB ai
-avertified that this is a true copy of ihe documentiorder as in the case file (QAIRAJTAIGPIEPIMPPT NO-/20) and thai all the matter appearing their have been vigibly and faithfully copied with ne modifications."
Oy. Registrar! $0 i) GAT Guwahati Bench Sd/-
Maniula Das . Hon'ble Member i) Sd/-
. Mr N. Neiasial Hon'ble Mamber (A) | MA.040/00140/19 & RA,040/00009/2019 {in OA.040/00063/2017}