Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
A.Revanth Kumar vs Sri Apurva Chandra & Others on 22 January, 2025
1 R.A.260/0001 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
R.A.No. 260/0001 of 2025
Dated: 22.01.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
A.Revanth Kumar ......................Review Applicant
Vrs.
Sri Apurva Chandra & Ors..............Review Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. A.K.Panigrahi, Counsel
For the Respondents : NIL
O R D E R
(Circulation)
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The instant Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on 08.01.2025 seeking to review of the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Contempt Petition No. 65 of 2024.
2. Section 17 of the AT Act Provides as under:
"17. Power to punish for contempt.-A Tribunal shall have, and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may exercise and, for this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), shall have effect subject to the modifications that-
(a) the references therein to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to such Tribunal,
(b) the references to the Advocate-General in section 15 of the said Act shall be construed,-
2 R.A.260/0001 of 2025
(i) in relation to the Central Administrative Tribunal, as a reference to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor General or the Additional Solicitor-General; and
(ii) in relation to an Administrative Tribunal for a State or a Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or more States, as a reference to the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which such Tribunal has been established." 3 As is well known that contempt is between the court and the contemnors and, basically, it is for the court/tribunal to see whether there has been any violation of the orders of the Tribunal or not.
4. In terms of the Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and the Notification dated 18th February, 1992 issued by Hon'ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5, 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985, this RA has been placed for consideration on circulation by the Registry.
5. Perused the averments and grounds raised in the RA vis a vis the records of the OA No. 536/2021 and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in CP 65/2024.
6. An "RA" is generally not maintainable against an order in a Contempt Petition decision because the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically outlines that an appeal can only be filed against an order that imposes punishment for contempt, not just any order passed in contempt proceedings, meaning, if the order in the contempt petition does not include a penalty, an appeal against it is not allowed. More evidently, no such power has been vested in the 3 R.A.260/0001 of 2025 Tribunal under the contempt of Courts Act (CAT Rules), 1992 formulated in exercise of power conferred by section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. While Section 13 of the aforesaid Rule provides for hearing and trial of the contempt petition, there is no provision whatsoever in the Act for review of its order passed in a contempt petition. In absence of specific vesting of power in this regard, it is felt that no review application is maintainable against the order passed in contempt petition by the Tribunal. Also, no specific power has been conferred or vested either in the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 or the CAT (Procedure) Rules), 1987 or CAT Rules of Practice or the Contempt of Court Act or CAT (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1992 for recall/review of an order passed on merits in contempt matters. In the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Latafat Ullah Khan and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814, also the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "It is well settled that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision therefrom".
7. The maintainability of RA in contempt matters was the subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2000 (Satyapal Singh, S/o Sri 4 R.A.260/0001 of 2025 Ganga...Vs I.M.G.Khan) and the Full bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2013 held as under:
" 14. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad consisting of Hon'ble Binod Kumar Roy and Hon'ble P.K. Jain, JJ in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and others reported in 1998 (33) ALR page 456- while following the aforesaid full bench of Shivragi (supra), it was observed that it is a settled law that appeal/ revision/review are creation of statute and no litigant has got an inherent right to prefer appeal/ revision or review. It also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh (supru), wherein it has been clearly laid down that in absence of any power, review is impermissible.
15. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has recently (by its order dated 17.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.66/2013 Mahavir Prasad Vs. CAT Lucknow an Others) upheld an order dated 13.9.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench in Civil Contempt Petition No. 22/2009 by observing that recall/review application is not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that virtually recalling of the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench will amount to review its earlier decision which was passed with the findings on merit (as is the situation in the present case).
Therefore, unless provided under the Act, no application for review/recall can be moved. It was also specifically observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for review of a judgment.
XXX XXX XXX
24. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is our considered view that recall application is not maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits.
5 R.A.260/0001 of 2025 We would like to add that Tribunal should refrain itself from dismissing a contempt case for default, particularly after issuance of show cause notice as discussed above. However, if such an order has been passed by a Tribunal, the absence of vesting/conferment of power of recall/review shall not come in the way of recalling because of such order being ab-initio void and nonest and would be constitutional and legal obligation of a Tribunal to recall such an order as discussed hereinbefore......
8. Further, it is noticed that this RA has not been filed for correction of any error apparent on the face of the order in CP but for rehearing the entire CP on merit afresh alleging that the Bench dismissed the CP without taking into consideration and proper appreciation of several/various facts and materials placed on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, while clarifying the ambit of the review jurisdiction, has categorically held that a decision cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits, since that would tall squarely within the province of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
9. Also in the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the ratio in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra) and further expounded that review proceedings were not by way of an appeal, and would 6 R.A.260/0001 of 2025 have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. It was further held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking of the record, obviating the need for long-drawn reasoning on two possible opinions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, AIR 2007 SC 268,8 while reiterating the decisions in Meera Bhanja (supra) and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra), drew out the narrow contours within which review jurisdiction of this Court had to be exercised and held that Order XLVII, CPC does not allow for the rehearing of a dispute merely because a party had not highlighted all aspects of the case.
10. Thus, viewed the matter from any angle, we find no justifiable ground to entertain this RA. This RA is accordingly dismissed on circulation. Registry is directed to upload this order in the CIS and copies of the same be made over to the parties concerned.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) K.B/PS