TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inistrative 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 the cadre of CIT to be promoted as Principal C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 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 consideration and as he was not promoted, he was entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 in the latter category and undermine respect of the judiciary and judicial institutions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 has reached finality. Thereby, the review petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 applications and confirmed the instructions contained in Office Memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), but in the case of D.B. Manival Raju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 provision of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: "Explanation.-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 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 Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held as under : (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12) "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dur 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 searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 21. In the case of Ram Sahu (Dead through L.Rs. and Others ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmal -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 of the review petitioners that there is error apparent on the face of the record to review the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.25505/2018, but the reason for filing the review petition is only because of change of law in a subsequent decision by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is impermissible in view of the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous 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 as appearing in Section 113 thereof and for the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 47 of the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court but such limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under: "17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermissible 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." 27. In the case of Beghar Fourdation through its Secretary and Another -vs- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Others in Review Petition Diary No. 45777/2018 D.D. 11th January, 2021 while considering review petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive 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 petitioners have not made out any error apparent on the face of the record and thereby, the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 32. In another judgment relied upon by the learned ASG in the case of A.R. Antulay -vs- R.S. Nayak and Another AIR 1988 SC 1531 (Criminal Appeal No. 468/1986) it has been held 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 ....