Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop And Another 1221 (S/B)1998 vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal Lko.And ... on 13 August, 2018
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 7 Case :- REVIEW PETITION No. - 509 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Swaroop And Another 1221 (S/B)1998 Respondent :- U.P.Public Service Tribunal Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar,A.P. Singh,Tung Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
Heard Shri A. P. Singh as well as Shri Tung Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the review-petitioner, Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.1996 passed by opposite party no.8/Deputy Land Reforms Commissioner, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, review-petitioner filed a Claim Petition No.1535 of 1996 before the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, dismissed by order dated 12.08.1998 with the following findings :-
" दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी गयी तथा पत्रावली में उपलब्धि अभिलेखों का अध्ययन किया गया | जिससे स्पष्ट है कि याचीगणों की नियुक्तियां नए रूप से की गयी थी, तथा उन्हें डेपुटेशन पर नहीं भेजा गया था |जैसा की आदेश दिनांक ३०.११.८५ (संलग्नक -३) जो कि अपर श्रमायुक्त, उ. प्र. द्वारा तथा आदेश दिनांक ११.११.९१ (संलग्नक -५) जो कि जिलाधिकारी, बरेली द्वारा पारित किये गए है, के अधययन से स्पष्ट है | आदेश दिनांक ३०.११.८५ (संलग्नक - ३) में इस बात का भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि याचीगणों कि नियुक्ति अस्थायी रूप से कि गया थी, तथा उन्हें किसी भी समय बिना किसी नोटिस आदि के, समाप्त किया जा सकता था | जिससे स्पष्ट है कि याचीगणों को अपर श्रमायुक्त के कार्यालय में डेपुटेशन पर नहीं भेजा गया था और न ही जिलाधिकरी, बरेली के कार्यालय में उनका कोई लियन ही बनता है | आदेश दिनांक २५.७.९६ (संलग्नक - १) के अध्ययन से स्पस्ट है कि याचीगणों को पुराणी वरिष्ठता का लाभ नहीं दिया जा सकता है | ऐसी परिस्थिति में याचीगणों कि वरिष्ठता, जिलाधिकारी कार्यालय, बरेली में, उनकी पहली नियुक्ति से नहीं मानी जा सकती है | आदेश दिनांक २५.७.९६ के अधययन से स्पष्ट है यह आदेश आयुक्त एवं सचिव, राजस्व परिषद् की तरफ से पारित किया गया | ऐसी परिस्थिति इस आदेश में कोई अनियमितता नहीं है | तथा यह आदेश मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिए गए निर्देशों के सन्दर्भ में ही नियमानुसार पारित किया, अतः इसे अनियमित घोषित करने का कोई वैधिक आधार नहीं है | याचीगण के अधिवक्ता द्वारा बहस के दौरान मा. उच्च न्यायालय के जिस उपरोक्त नियम का हवाला दिया गया है, वह वर्तमान मामले में लागू नहीं होता है, क्योकि याचीगणों की नियुक्ति नए रूप से की गयी थी, जैसा कि आदेश दिनांक २५.०७.९६ से स्पष्ट है | अतः याचीगणों द्वारा जो अनुतोष माँगा गया है, वह उसको पाने का पात्र नहीं है | और याचिका ख़ारिज होने योग्य है |"
Against the order dated 12.08.1998 passed by the Tribunal, review petitioner has filed the present writ petition No.1221 (SB) of 1998, dismissed by order dated 26.09.2012, which on reproduction reads as under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal dated 12.8.1998, approached this Court by means of the writ petition, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition which was filed by the petitioner.
We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal.
We do not find that any error has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the review-petitioner pressed the present review-petition on the sole argument that the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by this Court is non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned while passing the same, so the same may be recalled and the mater may be heard again.
In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, we feel it appropriate to go through the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
This Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163, rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:-
"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."
In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other " sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.
Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.
In View of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC . The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other' sufficient reason' must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the fact of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353, after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365; observed that review applications are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well.
So far as the sole argument raised by learned counsel for the review-petitioner in regard to the order dated 26.09.2012 which is non speaking one is concerned, from the perusal of the record, the position which emerges out is that initially an order dated 25.07.1996 has been passed against the review-petitioner, which was challenged by him by filing claim petition, dismissed by order dated 12.08.1998. Both said orders are speaking one and this Court has confirmed the same, then there is no legal requirement to give reasoned order because it is settled proposition of law that an order does not become bad merely because reasons have not been recorded unless the delinquent succeeds in establishing that such a decision was not permissible. (See Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2043, S. N. Mukherji vs. Union of India & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 594, Badri Nath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 395 and Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 240).
In the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. P. K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597, Hon'ble the Apex Court reiterating the same view observing as under :-
"The concurrence of the Disciplinary Authority with the reasoning and conclusion of the Inquiry Officer means that the Disciplinary Authority has adopted the conclusion and the basis of the conclusion as its own. It is not for the Disciplinary Authority to restate the reasoning."
Thus, in view of the above said facts and taking into consideration the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC as well as the fact that the findings of the Tribunal thereby dismissing the claim petition are neither perverse nor contrary to the facts on record while allowing the claim petition as in the same, reasoned order has been given, we do not find any good ground or reason to interfere in the matter.
In the result, review petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
.
(Virendra Kumar-II,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Mahesh