2) This Court Has Heard Sri ... vs Subrahmanyam
2023 Latest Caselaw 3565 AP

                                     1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                and
  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
                      I.A.No.2 of 2019
                             in
                WRIT APPEAL No.267 of 2019

ORDER: (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

       This Review Petition is filed to review the order, dated

27.11.2019, made in W.A.No.267 of 2019.

       2)   This Court has heard Sri Motepalli Vijaya Kumar,

learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, as

instructed by Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy; Sri V. Subrahmanyam,

learned counsel for respondent No.2; learned Government

Pleader for Education for respondent No.1 and Sri Sk.Khaja,

learned counsel appears on behalf of Sri G. Narasimha Rao,

learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

3) The arguments of the respondents were led by Sri

V.Subrahmanyam and the other learned counsels followed

the same.

4) Learned senior counsel has stated that the review

involves a simple point. According to him five writ

petitioners have filed the Writ Petition No.1432 of 2019

questioning the action of the respondents in not enhancing

the age of the superannuation from 58 to 60 years. This Writ

Petition was dismissed on 05.08.2019. Against the said

order W.A.No.267 of 2019 was filed. Writ Appeal was allowed

by a Division Bench of this Court by orders dated 27.11.2019

holding that only petitioners 3 and 4 were entitled to the

relief viz., enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years

as the others had retired by then.

5) The respondent management filed SLP in Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India. Three other persons filed writ

petitions in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Those Writ

Petitions were tagged along with the SLP filed by the

Management and relief was given to three writ petitioners

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by stating that the

writ petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of the

direction contained in the judgment of the High Court.

Learned senior counsel submits that, therefore, both under

law and on equity the review petitioners, who were the

original writ petitioners in W.P.No.1432 of 2019, should also

be given the benefit.

6) Learned counsel Sri V.Subrahmanyam, argued

for the respondents. He also supported by the other learned

counsels for the contesting respondents. It is his contention

that review is not at all maintainable. He relies upon the

judgment in Lily Thomas etc., v Union of India and

Others1 and decision of the learned single Judge of this

Court in the judgment of Director Geneal of Police, A.P.,

and Others v D. Ravi Babu2. It is his contention that the

grounds of review are extremely narrow and the review

jurisdiction cannot be confused with the appeal jurisdiction

that the Courts possess. Therefore, he submits that the

review application should be dismissed.

COURT:

7) This Court after hearing the learned counsel

notices that there is no dispute in the facts. There is no

dispute about the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India granted relief to the three writ petitioners who

approached the Supreme Court of India directly.

AIR 2000 SCC 1650

2022 (3) ALD 610 (AP)

8) The question, however, is one of review

jurisdiction and the present application for review. The case

law cited by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri

Subrahmanyam are squarely applicable to the facts of the

case. Review can only be granted under certain limited

circumstances like when the petitioner discovers new and

important material or matter after exercise of due diligence,

which is not within their knowledge at the time of judgment

was passed by the first Court. The review jurisdiction can

also be exercised when there is an error which is clearly

visible from the record and this is an error which need not be

searched. The "other sufficient reason" should also be

analog to the above. Lastly, if the order is absolutely

opposed to the provisions of law, such conditions are not

present at all in the present application. An argument was

also advanced on "equity" as three people were given benefit

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, equity

follows the law. It is clearly explained in the Latin maxim

"Aequitas sequitur legem" - equity has to follow the law. It

cannot override the law and must yield to it (National Spot

Exchange Limited v Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional

for Dunar Foods Ltd.,3). The cases that are cited by Sri

Subrahmanyam support this finding only. Whatever be the

merits in the submission, this Court is of the opinion that in

review jurisdiction it cannot grant the relief prayed for.

9) Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

_________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J Date:19.07.2023.

Ssv

(2022) 11 SCC 761