TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.6.2017. I Facts of the case 2. The present respondents, filed O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench to set aside the three orders dated 19.10.2015 as per Annexures-19, 20 and 21 and direct the review petitioners herein to grant applicants/respondents pro-forma/notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax and consequential retirement benefits as per ACC list dated 30.1.2015 Annexure-A5 for the panel year 2013-14 from 31.5.2014 when the posts were created as per CBDT Notification-Annexure-A4, contending that the applicants/respondents through an All India Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) were appointed to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and joined service in the Cadre of ITO Group 'A'/Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax and secured their regular promotions and finally reached to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Applicants retired on 30.9.2013, 25.5.2014 and 31.12.2014 respectively. It was further contended that the Department prepared a list of eligible candidates from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Income Tax Department by promoting them from the post of Commissioner by creating 184 additional posts as per Annexure-A by taking existing 116 posts to 300. Admittedly, as on that date, all the three applicants, were serving as Commissioners of Income Tax at different offices under the 2nd review petitioner. It is prior to implementation of the order, they had been relieved from their services as stated supra and as such, they were in consideration zone for the panel year 2013-14. It was further held that the names of the applicants were considered by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for promotion to the post of the 1st respondent-Anuradha Goyal shown at Sl.No.11, 2nd respondent-Pavin Kishore Prasad at Sl.No.27, 3rd respondent-Satish Goyal at Sl.No.38 (which is shown as Satish Chand Goyal) vide Annexure-A5 dated 30.1.2015 and the applicant one D.B. Manival Raju in earlier application was shown at Sl.No.97 in the said list. Since Sri D.B. Manival Raju approached the Tribunal by filing an application in O.A.No.1698/2015, his application for consideration of notional promotion was allowed, thereby indicated that as on the date, though his name was due for consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, who passed the order was also the Member, in the earlier Bench while passing the order. He would further contend that the decision to file present review petition before this Court was preceded by filing Writ Petition No.13203/2020 in the case of D.B. Manival Raju which was pending consideration. The main grounds for review of the order passed in writ petition are that as per para-6.4.4 of the Department of Personal and Training/DoPT OM No.22011/5/86 - Estt(D) dated 10.4.1989, the promotion will be made in the order of the consolidated select list and such promotion will only have prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to previous years and therefore, the respondents cannot claim the promotion from the date of vacancy arose and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal and Another -vs- Dinesh Kumar Sharma, seniority cannot be claimed from the date when vacancy arose. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition also observed that on the date of passing of the impugned order by this Court, the review petitioners herein, who were also parties to the case of D.B. Manival Raju, have not challenged the said order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, when it notices the apparent errors, its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down. Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record. ii) Shivdev Singh and Others -vs- State of Punjab and Others AIR 1963 SC 1909 particularly paragraph-10 that there is nothing in Article 266 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. iii) A.R. Antulay -vs- R.S. Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531, paragraph-140 holding that the highest Court in the land should not, by technicalities of procedure forge fetters on its own feet and disable itself in cases of serious miscarriages of justice. It is said that 'Life of law is not logic; it has been experience'. Those who do not put the teachings of experience and the lessons of logic out of consideration would tell what inspires confidence in the judiciary and what does not. Judicial vacillations fall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021 by allowing the writ petition. Now the present review petition is filed after a lapse of one year one month i.e., on 20.2.2021 and infact, the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is in accordance with law and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 12. Sri Pravin Kishore Prasad, respondent No.2-Party-in- Person while adopting the arguments of Sri Satish Goyal-Party-in- Person/respondent No.3 contended that the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 21st January, 2020 allowed Writ Petition No.25502/2018 by deciding the case on facts and merits and merely because a subsequent order dated 16.3.2021 is rendered by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13203/2020 because of change of law, is not a ground for review of the order. Admittedly, though the present review petitioners were parties to writ Petition No.13203/2020, they never brought notice of the subsequent order dated 21.6.2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing Writ Petition No.25502/2018 on merits wherein reliance was placed on the order dated 21.6.2017 in D.B. Manival Raju - applicant in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 which h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uential retirement benefits as per ACC list dated 30.1.2015 Annexure-A5 for the panel year 2013-14 from 31.5.2014 as per CBDT Notification-Annexure-A4. It was further case of the applicants before the Tribunal that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considering the eligible candidates submitted its recommendations to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for approval of the proposal for empanelment of officers for promotion to the post of Principal CIT against the panel year 2013-14 which was approved on 30.1.2015 and the names of the present applicants were figured at Serial Nos. 11, 27 and 38 respectively in the list of officers approved in the regular panel. On the same day, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance issued an order Annexure-A6 giving effect to the approval of the ACC. Unfortunately, by the time, the order Annexure-A6 could be issued, these applicants had got already retired from service and consequently, they could not be promoted despite their names having been found in the promotion list approved by the ACC and thereby, they sought the reliefs as prayed for before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat subsequent Co-ordinate Bench has set aside the order dated 21.6.2017 in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 in the case of D.B. Manival Raju and thereby the present review petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed in Writ Petition No.25502/2018 in view of the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.25502/2018 while deciding the case on merits relied upon the order dated 21.6.2017 passed in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 in the case of D.B. Manival Raju which was existing as on that date and binding on both parties. If the present review petitioners are really aggrieved by the said order, they ought to have filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court instead of waiting one year one month and getting an order 16.3.2021 suppressing the order dated 21st January,2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 25502/2018 and thereby the review petition filed by the present review petitioners placing reliance on subsequent decision/change of law is not a ground for review in view of Explanation of pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'." (emphasis in original) 18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]". 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review."" 22. While considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal -vs- Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464 held that the error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC for permissibility of review must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one, which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, the review will lie. 23. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'." 26. While considering the provisions of Sections 114, 113, 151 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) through L.Rs., -vs- Motilal (Dead) through L.Rs., (2009) 14 SCC 663 at paragraphs-7 to 11 has held as under: "7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") provides for a substantive power of review by a civil court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words "subject as aforesaid" occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056 : AIR 2000 SC 1650] this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR 1963 SC 1909 wherein a review petition came to be filed by persons who were not party to the previous proceedings. Under that circumstance and their interests though were sought to be affected by the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the review petition. Admittedly, in the present case, the present review petitioners were parties to the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench, which is sought under review on merits as well as on decision passed in D.B. Manival Raju's case by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, the said judgment stated supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. Another judgment relied upon by the learned ASG in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another -vs- Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others AIR 1954 SC 526 wherein at paragraph-34 it is observed that the only defect pointed out was that no invitation of the meeting was given to the churches under the control of 1st defendant and certainly, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Admittedly, as already stated supra, in the present case, except change of law passed in a subsequent judgment, the review petitione....