TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the review petitioner had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the review petition and whether the review could be entertained; (ii) Whether the alleged misquotation of the Expert Committee report in the earlier judgment justified review or modification of that judgment; (iii) Whether the interpretation and applicability of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 called for review.
Issue (i): Whether the review petitioner had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the review petition and whether the review could be entertained.
Analysis: The delay was examined on the basis of the steps taken at various levels in the Ministry of Mines and the explanation was accepted as sufficient. The Court also allowed the Union of India to be heard in review, having regard to the requirement of fairness and natural justice.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the review was entertained.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged misquotation of the Expert Committee report in the earlier judgment justified review or modification of that judgment.
Analysis: The Court found that part of the Expert Committee report had been wrongly quoted by adding lines not contained in the original text. The Court held that this clerical error could be corrected by deleting the misquoted portion, but the judgment did not become erroneous merely on that account because the conclusion reached earlier remained supportable even without the mistaken lines.
Conclusion: The misquoted portion was ordered to be deleted, but no broader review on that ground was granted.
Issue (iii): Whether the interpretation and applicability of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 called for review.
Analysis: The Court held that the dispute was essentially one of interpretation and that review jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute one possible view for another. An error that is not apparent on the face of the record cannot justify review, and a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The earlier reasoning on the statutory scheme was therefore not open to re-agitation.
Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier interpretation of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The review petition resulted only in limited correction of the earlier judgment by deleting the misquoted extract, while the substantive challenge to the earlier interpretation of the mining law was not accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record or analogous grounds, and cannot be invoked to reargue the merits or substitute an alternative view; a clerical misquotation may be corrected without warranting broader review if it does not alter the substantive basis of the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
