Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Prem Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2005
Thus, no review is permissible. The Office Memorandums dated 9.9.1975 & 14.11.2007 based on which review is being sought, especially on the presumption that the Government servants living in their own houses are eligible to HRA, is not of much relevance in view of the following observations of the Tribunal in para 6.1 of its order whose review is being sought, namely, However, the point remains that the issue here is different. The issue under adjudication is not regarding the eligibility or otherwise for HRA of an employee living in his own accommodation but whether such HRA can be claimed even when the concerned employee has been allotted a Government accommodation which offer he has declined. Since this issue has specifically come for consideration of the Apex Court at length in the judgment cited by the respondents, we would dwell on it. and then the Tribunal has proceeded to passed its order on the basis of the decision in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesargod & Ors (supra), which squarely covers the issue under consideration as observed by the Tribunal hereinabove. The review applicants contend that the Tribunal erred in holding this view. That being so, the remedy would lie in an appeal against this order and not in review as is being sought herein.
M. Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors vs Mandal Revenue, Officer Cum Land ... on 25 August, 1998
11. Furthermore, successive Review Applications against the same order is not maintainable in law. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarayana Murthy and others vs. Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1999 SC 40. The circumstances under which the review can be allowed in law are well settled. The power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law. The review, therefore, cannot be heard on the basis of any liberty. The liberty as referred to by the review applicants herein cannot be used as a means to achieve the advantage which is not otherwise available in law. It does not give a new right to the party to agitate the matter further.
1