Union Of India And Others vs Phool Chand And Others on 24 August, 2012
"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India and others,
(1997) 6 SCC 473 and the decision of the Full Bench
of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra RA
200/00001/2017 (in OA 155/1999) Pradesh in
G.Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Director of School
Education & others, 2005 (4) SLR 720, which was
followed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in
Union of India & others vs. Phool Chandra & others
(RA No.19 of 2011), MA No.3594 of 2014, which is
an application for condonation of delay, deserves to
Page 10 of 12
Sub : Review 11 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020
be an is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the
Review Application also deserves to be rejected as
being barred by limitation. Moreover, the review can
be made only when there is an error apparent on the
face of record or on discovery of any new and
important material which even after due diligence
was not available. In the present case, no such error
could be shown. We also do not find either of the
things. There is no scope for entering again into
merits of the case. The review cannot be sought
merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or
correction of erroneous view, if any, taken earlier. If
the review applicant is not satisfied with the order
passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The
scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible
for the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.