JUDGMENT R.M. Borde, J.
1. The instant review application is filed by original respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 Shobha Kailash Bonekar v. Cantonment Executive Officer 2007 (3) Bom. CR 1 (AB) (SB), praying for recalling the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed on a reference by Five Judges Bench of this Court. The grounds of objections raised in the application objecting to the verdict delivered by the Bench are serialized as below:
(a) According to the applicant, although the dispute between the contesting parties i.e., original respondent No. 3 and original respondent No. 1 relates to "seniority and promotion", by reading para No. 3 of the judgment, it appears that the Court proceeded to determine the issue on the footing that the subject-matter relates to "disciplinary action". This mistake, according to the applicant, is an error on the face of record.
(b) An objection is raised in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the application as regards non-consideration of provisions of Section 2(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, which defines the term "approved school" and Section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, which deals with 'recognition of and grants to approved schools under private management', which failure according to the applicant is an error which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of the powers of review.
(c) In para Nos. 11 and 12, the applicant has raised a ground of challenge relating to failure on the part of the Court to consider the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 more specifically Rule 104-A which puts interpretation to the term "private school" and the other related provisions, namely, Rule 105-A and Rules 107 to 111 of the said rules, which according to the applicant is a mistake apparent on the face of record.
(d) In para No. 17 of the application, grievance is made by the applicant as regards in appropriate consideration of the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant at Bar as is reflected in the text of the judgment delivered by the Court while answering the reference.
(e) Lastly, it is contended that the judgment and order delivered by the Court does not in effect answer reference referred to it in terms of the reference made by the Full Bench.
2. We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Sapkal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Khandare, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State, Mr. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/original petitioner, Mr. Kakade, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
3. As regards the first objection raised by the applicant as regards the mentioning of "disciplinary action" in para No. 3 of the judgment, same does not affect the merit of the reference answered to by the Bench. The Bench was primarily concerned with the issue as to "whether the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 could entertain an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 by the employees working in the schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board" and the larger Bench has answered the said issue. The objection raised as reflected in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the application is devoid of any merit.
4. The other grounds as regards non-consideration of certain provisions of related enactments which according to the applicant ought to have been dealt with by the Bench while answering the issue, cannot be the matter for consideration in an application for review. While dealing with the question under reference, this Court has considered the relevant provisions and has arrived at a definite conclusion. Non-consideration of the provisions of law in a particular manner in which the petitioner wants to agitate, cannot be a ground for reviewing a judgment. It also cannot be disputed that review would not be permissible even if the Court does proceed on wrong exposition of law or has wrongly decided on a question of law. It would also not be permissible also on the ground that the decision is erroneous on merit. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court while entertaining an application for review of the judgment and order as has been explained in the mater of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Ariban Pishak Sharma and Ors. :
It is true that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the 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. But there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Side Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.
5. Mr. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a reported judgment in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 (Supp.) Bom. CR (SC) 464 : AIR 2000 SC 1650. The Apex Court was dealing with the powers of review in reference to Article 137 and under the Supreme Court Rules. The Apex Court while making reference to other judgments, has observed in para No. 53 of the judgment as follows It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and fresh decision of the case. Normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
The Supreme Court further observed:
...But whatever the nature of the proceedings; it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.
In para No. 55 of the judgment, the Court proceeds to observe:
It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and 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 an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.
In view of the law relating to the subject as propounded by the Apex Court, it would not be appropriate to entrain a challenge to the judgment delivered by this Court while answering the reference on consideration of the grounds raised in the application by the review petitioner merely because if the analogy as proposed by the applicant Is possible of being accepted which would lead to a different conclusion as regards the interpretation of the provisions of law.
6. The contention raised by the review applicant that the Court has in terms answered the point referred to by the learned single Judge and has not dealt with the aspect in the manner prescribed by the Full Bench while placing the matter before the Larger Bench, is devoid of any substance. The opinion expressed by the Full Bench while placing the matter before the Larger Bench is in itself contains an Issue raised earlier while making a reference to the Larger Bench. The opinion expressed by the Full Bench itself has Inherent in it the terms of reference which was expected to be dealt with by the Larger Bench.
7. This Court has ultimately while delivering the judgment dealt with an issue which was placed for consideration before the Court. The objection raised in this regard by the review petitioner is devoid of any substance.
8. For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the applicant in the review application and the review application is therefore liable to be rejected. In the result the review application is rejected.