Review applications allowed; delay condoned due to earlier 18.10.2024 order; declines to test unchallenged PBPT Act, 1988

The AT allowed the review applications and condoned delay, finding applicants showed sufficient cause tied to the SC's 18.10.2024 order. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate constitutional validity of unchallenged provisions of the PBPT Act, 1988 for lack of lis and noted it lacked jurisdiction to revisit certain SC determinations. It refrained from deciding whether the 2016 Amending Act applies retroactively, leaving that issue to the SC. The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to permit merits hearing of the appeals (previously not decided by consent) and rejected objections that subsequent judicial views or change of law bar review.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether applications for condonation of delay in filing review/rectification of Tribunal orders ought to be allowed where those orders were disposed of relying on a judgment of the Apex Court that was subsequently recalled on review.

2. Whether a review/rectification of the Tribunal's order is maintainable where the Tribunal's order was disposed of in light of an Apex Court judgment later recalled, and where the Apex Court, on recall, granted liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review of proceedings decided relying on the recalled judgment.

3. Scope and effect of the Apex Court's recall order and the limited orders (e.g., Kokilaben / K.L. Rathi line) holding that subsequent contrary decisions of co-ordinate or later courts are not by themselves grounds for review - whether those authorities preclude the Tribunal from entertaining review applications in the present circumstances.

4. Whether a change in law or later conflicting decision (or territorial High Court view) by itself entitles a party to review, or whether the present facts constitute a distinguishable ground for review.

5. Whether invocation of an incorrect statutory provision (e.g., Section 47 instead of Section 40(2)(f) of the Act of 1988) is fatal to a review/rectification application.

6. Whether the Tribunal should defer disposal of review applications pending final adjudication of the recalled issue by the Apex Court, or recall its order and restore appeals for fresh hearing.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay

Legal framework: Principles governing condonation of delay (limitation) and liberal approach endorsed by Apex Court: substantive justice / merits to prevail; Section 5 Limitation Act principles and cases permitting condonation especially where State/governmental delay or where merits are compelling.

Precedent Treatment: Reliance on Supreme Court authorities (Collector (LA) v. Katiji; Esha Bhattacharjee; Inder Singh; Special Tehsildar v. K.V. Ayisumma; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani) that condonation should be pragmatic, justice-oriented and not pedantic; that delay should not scuttle meritorious claims.

Interpretation and reasoning: The recall of the Apex Court judgment on 18.10.2024 furnished a specific cause for filing review applications; administrative processing after that order explains short delays (30-90 days) in many matters; the Tribunal must avoid scuttling merits where review has prima facie substance and dismissal on technical limitation grounds would cause discrimination among similarly situated parties.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a recalled superior court judgment and liberty to seek review furnish sufficient cause, a pragmatic, merits-oriented approach permits condonation of short delays; Obiter - general observations on government delay and bureaucratic processing.

Conclusions: Condonation of delay allowed. Delay explained by reliance on recall order and administrative processing; prejudice and merits considerations justify condonation.

Issue 2 - Maintainability of Review Where Tribunal Relied on Recalled Apex Judgment

Legal framework: Tribunal's power to review its decisions under its statutory provision (Section 40(2)(f) of the Act of 1988 analogously), and principles governing review (Order XLVII CPC explanation and established tests for review vs appeal).

Precedent Treatment: Courts generally hold that a subsequent contrary decision or change in law is not by itself a ground for review (Beghar Foundation; Gracemac Foundation; Binapani Paul line), but also recognized that recall of a superior court's judgment restoring a cause may justify review where the earlier disposal was based exclusively on that now-recalled decision.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal's impugned orders were disposed of by applying the Apex Court's earlier Ganpati Dealcom judgment and expressly reserved liberty to seek review depending on Apex Court outcome. The Apex Court wholly recalled its judgment and granted liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review where proceedings had been disposed relying on that judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal's order, being founded on a recalled superior court decision, presents a distinct ground for review distinguishable from mere change of law.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a tribunal's decision is founded on an Apex Court judgment that is subsequently recalled and liberty is granted to seek review, the tribunal may entertain review to restore matters for adjudication on merits; Obiter - broader comments distinguishing change of law from the present factual peculiarities.

Conclusions: Review applications held maintainable; the Tribunal recalled its earlier order and restored appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.

Issue 3 - Effect of Kokilaben / K.L. Rathi (Scope of Review) and Co-ordinate Bench Decisions

Legal framework: Hierarchy and binding effect - three-judge vs two-judge benches and co-ordinate bench precedents; principles that a subsequent co-ordinate bench decision reversing an earlier view does not automatically create review grounds (Explanation to Order XLVII CPC taken into account by Apex Court decisions).

Precedent Treatment: Kokilaben (two-judge expressing inability to agree with three-judge grant of liberty) declined to endorse liberty granted by three-judge bench, referring to K.L. Rathi; K.L. Rathi restricts scope of review where subsequent decisions reverse law.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal lacks power to overrule or declare itself unable to follow a three-judge Apex Court order. The operative recall by a three-judge bench (recalling its earlier full bench judgment) and the specific liberty granted to seek review of proceedings disposed relying on that judgment create an obligation on the Tribunal to allow review despite subsequent two-judge comments in Kokilaben. The Tribunal cannot nullify or disregard the three-judge recall; doing so risks conflicting orders and discrimination among similarly situated parties.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a three-judge Apex Court recalls its judgment and grants liberty to seek review of proceedings disposed on that judgment, a tribunal should give effect to that recall and entertain review even if later two-judge orders express disagreement; Obiter - observations on institutional hierarchy and potential for future Apex Court re-adjudication.

Conclusions: Kokilaben / K.L. Rathi lines do not preclude the Tribunal from entertaining review in the present circumstances; the Tribunal will follow the three-judge recall and grant review/restore appeals.

Issue 4 - Change of Law / Territorial High Court Views (Bombay) - Whether Bar to Review

Legal framework: Principle that change in law is not an independent ground for review; territorial High Court judgments binding within jurisdiction; finality and conflict principles pending Apex Court adjudication.

Precedent Treatment: Binapani Paul and Mangathai Ammal instances cited to show earlier authority that the Act of 1988 may not apply retrospectively; but Apex Court's recall means that the prospective/retrospective question is pending fresh adjudication.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal is not determining substantive question of prospective vs retrospective application of the Amending Act of 2016 in these reviews; the recall created a procedural and jurisdictional basis for restoring appeals for merits adjudication. Territorial High Court determinations (Bombay) do not preclude review when the Tribunal's order was premised on a recalled Apex Court decision and the issue is pending before the Apex Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - territorial High Court views do not prevent recall/restoration where a superior court's judgment relied upon by the Tribunal has been recalled; Obiter - distinction reiterated between merits and procedural grounds for review.

Conclusions: Territorial High Court precedents (Bombay) do not bar acceptance of review in these circumstances; Tribunal refrains from adjudicating the substantive prospective/retrospective question.

Issue 5 - Wrongly Invoked Statutory Provision (Section 47 v. Section 40(2)(f))

Legal framework: Substance over form doctrine; established principle that mentioning wrong provision is not fatal if authority possessed jurisdiction and relief sought is evident (P.K. Palanisamy; N. Mani; Md. Shahabuddin; Pruthvirajsinh Jadega).

Precedent Treatment: Apex Court authorities hold that wrong citation of provision does not nullify an application where the competent power exists and the substance of relief is clear.

Interpretation and reasoning: Majority of review applications invoked the Tribunal's review power under Section 40(2)(f); a minority referred to Section 47. The Tribunal has statutory power to review its decisions; mere mis-referencing of provisions is curable and not fatal where jurisdiction exists and the relief sought is review of Tribunal order.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - incorrect citation of a statutory provision does not render a review application non-maintainable if the Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction and the substance of relief is clear; Obiter - emphasis on substantial justice over hyper-technicality.

Conclusions: Mis-reference to Section 47 in some applications is not fatal; review applications are maintainable in substance under Section 40(2)(f).

Issue 6 - Whether Tribunal Should Await Apex Court Final Determination or Recall and Restore Appeals

Legal framework: Duty to avoid creating inconsistent orders; principle of avoiding discrimination among similarly situated litigants; finality and separation of powers between Tribunal and Apex Court.

Precedent Treatment: Authorities promote adjudication on merits where feasible and condonation of delay where meritorious (Collector (LA) v. Katiji; Inder Singh; Katiji line) and stress that parties given liberty by a higher court ought to be able to vindicate rights without discrimination.

Interpretation and reasoning: Because the Tribunal's orders were disposed relying on a recalled Apex Court judgment and the Apex Court expressly granted liberty to seek review, deferring adjudication until final Apex Court determination would produce discrimination (some matters disposed with liberty, others stayed) and may conflict with future Apex Court directives. The Tribunal therefore recalled its orders and restored appeals for fresh adjudication to enable merits hearing consistent with the Apex Court recall and liberty.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a higher court recalls a judgment and grants liberty to seek review of matters disposed relying on that judgment, a tribunal may recall its orders and restore appeals to prevent discrimination and potential conflict with future superior court determinations; Obiter - practical observations on fairness, docket management and avoidance of anarchy.

Conclusions: Tribunal recalled its earlier orders and restored appeals for fresh hearing rather than await final Apex Court determination; appeals to be listed for hearing on merits.

---