Madras High Court
V.Velayutham vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 February, 2022
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2022
1.V.Velayutham ..Applicant/Appellant
(in REV.APLC.(MD)No.26 of 2022)
2.P.Selvaraj ..Applicant/Appellant
(in REV.APLC.(MD)No.27 of 2022)
3.C.Punnaivanam ..Applicant/Appellant
(in REV.APLC.(MD)No.28 of 2022)
4.Ochathevar ..Applicant/Appellant
(in REV.APLC.(MD)No.29 of 2022)
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15. .. Respondents/Respondents
(in all applications)
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
COMMON PRAYER : Review Applications are filed under Order 47 Rule
1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order passed in W.A.
(MD)Nos.1773, 1774, 1775 & 1776 of 2021 dated 18.11.2021, on the file
of this Court.
In all applications:
For Applicant : Mr.G.Chandrasekar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
***********
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
These review applications are filed to review the order dated
18.11.2021 made in W.A.(MD)Nos.1773, 1774, 1775 & 1776 of 2021, filed
by the review applicants/appellants.
2. The case of the review applicants is that they were appointed as
Social Forestry Workers in the Forest Department on various dates viz.,
01.12.1983, 31.03.1986, 16.04.1983 and 01.11.1985 respectively. Their
services were regularised on 06.08.2009. Subsequently, they retired from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2018, 28.02.2017,
31.05.2011 and 29.02.2020, respectively. After retirement, all the review
applicants gave representations dated, 05.10.2018, 19.02.2021, 26.12.2019
and 11.06.2020 respectively, to regularize their service from the year 1994
and grant all monetary benefits.
3. Admittedly, the review applicants retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.07.2018, 28.02.2017, 31.05.2011 and
29.02.2020 respectively. Till their retirment, the review applicants did not
take any steps for regularization of their service from the year 1994. After
their retirment, the review applicants gave the representations to regularise
their service from the year 1994 and grant all monetary benefits. Though
the review applicants attained the age of superannuation as indicated above,
they have neither taken any steps to approach the Court on earlier occasions
nor they have made any representation seeking regularization of their
service from the year 1994. Therefore, the Writ Court dismissed the writ
petitions on the ground of laches and this Court also finds that the review
applicants have not given any valid reason for not approaching the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
earlier and also not given any reason as to why they have not even made any
representation before the respondents till their service and only they gave
the representation after their service and therefore, dismissed the writ
appeals.
4. The review applicants have not given any reason as to how the
present review applications are maintainable. The review applicants have
not shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the records in the
order of the Court.
5. Though the learned counsel for the review applicants/appellants
vehemently contended that once the numerous persons approached the
Court for their relief in the service matters, the Court has to extend the same
benefit to all the similarly placed persons even if they have not approcahed
the Court. Therefore, in this case also, some of the employees approached
this Court and the Court considered their relief and also issued the
directions. Therefore, the review applicants cannot be rejected on the
ground that they have not approached the Court earlier. Therefore, the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
in writ appeals are liable to be set aside and the learned counsel also placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in
(2015) 1 SCC 347.
6. We have gone through the entire materials and also the decision
referred to by the learned counsel for the review applicants and also
considering the facts and circumstances given the findings in the above said
decision, the review applicants have not given any reason as to why they
have not made any representation before the respondents for regularizing
their service from the year 1994 onwards and not given any reason as to
why they have not approached this Court on earlier occasion. It is the settled
proposition of law, that unless there is an error apparent on the face of the
record either on law or facts, the review applications are not maintainable.
The counsel for the review applicants have not shown any error apparent on
the face of the record and the learned counsel for the review applicants only
reargued the grounds raised in the writ appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
7. Therefore, considering the above said facts and circumstances of
the case, the review applications are dismissed and if aggrieved by the
judgment, the review applicants can only file an appeal and not the review.
8. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the following decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs.
N.Raju Reddiar and another reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, it has been
held that “When an appeal is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of
law or fact is apparent on the records, no review can be filed.”
(ii) In the case of Vinay Sharma and Another Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 186. The relevant portion of
the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“...20. Before we enter into the submissions raised in these review
petitions, it is useful to recapitulate the scope and grounds available for
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 137. Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 dealing with review is as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
“1.The Court may review its judgment or order, but no
application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding
except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code,
and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error
apparent on the face of the record.”
21. An application to review a judgment is not to be lightly
entertained and this Court could exercise its review jurisdiction only
when those grounds are made out as provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145 of the
Constitution of India. This Court in Sow Chandra Kante and another v.
Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna
Iyer on review has stated the following in para 11:
11. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and
over ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered
ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously
insufficient.
22. As per rule, review in a criminal proceeding is permissible
only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. This Court
in P.N.Eswara Iyer and others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India,
(1980) 4 SCC 680 while examining the review jurisdiction of this Court
vis a vis criminal and civil proceedings had made the following
observations in paras 34 and 35:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
“34 . The rule, on its face, affords wider set of grounds for
review for orders in civil proceedings, but limits the ground vis-a-
vis criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the
record. If at all, the concern of the law to avoid judicial error
should be heightened when life or liberty is in peril since civil
penalties are often less traumatic. So, it is reasonable to assume
that the framers of the rules could not have intended a restrictive
review over criminal orders or judgments. It is likely to be the
other way about. Supposing an accused is sentenced to death by
the Supreme Court and the deceased shows up in court and the
court discovers the tragic treachery of the recorded testimony. Is
the court helpless to review and set aside the sentence of
hanging? We think not. The power to review is in Article 137 and
it is equally wide in all proceedings. The rule merely canalises
the flow from the reservoir of power. The stream cannot stifle the
source. Moreover, the dynamics of interpretation depend on the
demand of the context and the lexical limits of the test. Here
record means any material which is already on record or may,
with the permission of the court, be brought on record. If justice
summons the Judges to allow a vital material in, it becomes part
of the record; and if apparent error is there, correction becomes
necessitous.
35. The purpose is plain, the language is elastic and
interpretation of a necessary power must naturally be expansive.
The substantive power is derived from Article 137 and is as wide
for criminal as for civil proceedings. Even the difference in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
phraseology in the rule (Order 40 Rule 2) must, therefore, be
read to encompass the same area and not to engraft an artificial
divergence productive of anomaly. If the expression record is
read to mean, in its semantic sweep, any material even later
brought on record, with the leave of the court, it will embrace
subsequent events, new light and other grounds which we find in
Order 47 Rule 1, CPC. We see no insuperable difficulty in
equating the area in civil and criminal proceedings when review
power is invoked from the same source.”
23. The scope of review jurisdiction has been considered by this
Court in a number of cases where well settled principles have been
reiterated time and again. It is sufficient to refer to judgment of this
Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320,
where this Court has elaborately considered the scope of review. In paras
17, 18, 20.1 and 20.2 following has been laid down:
17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if
that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence
cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there
is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason
akin thereto. This Court in Kerala SEB V. Hitech Electrothermics
and Hydropower Ltd. held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 10)
10. In a review petition it is not open to this Court to
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if
that is possible. The learned counsel for the Board at best sought to
impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid
such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review
petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence
produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a
conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition
unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the
record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended
before us that there is any error apparent on the face
of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a
question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a
review petition into an appeal in disguise.
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., 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
submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which
had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had
been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review
petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused
with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all
errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an
original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review
can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection
and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant
herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was
heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an
indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my
opinion, is in the nature of second innings which is impermissible
and unwarranted and cannot be granted.
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge
of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words any other sufficient reason have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
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.
24. This very Bench speaking through one of us (Justice Ashok
Bhushan) had occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the review
Jurisdiction in a criminal proceeding in Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia
and another vs. State of Punjab and another (2017) 8 SCC 518. In para
23 of the judgement following has been stated:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
“23. In view of the above, it is clear that scope, ambit and
parameters of review jurisdiction are well defined. Normally in a
criminal proceeding, review applications cannot be entertained
except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.
Further, the power given to this Court under Article 137 is wider
and in an appropriate case can be exercised to mitigate a
manifest injustice. By review application an applicant cannot be
allowed to reargue the appeal on the grounds which were urged
at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the
applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another
view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is
not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its
jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent
mistake has crept in the earlier decision due to judicial fallibility.
There has to be an error apparent on the face of the record
leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review
jurisdiction under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. There
has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record with
results in the miscarriage of justice.”
(iii)Further, in another recent decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 (Yashwant Sinha and Others
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and Another).
The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
“..96.As far as the judicial review of the award of the contract is
concerned, apart from the fact that a review does not permit
reappreciation of the materials, there is the aspect of the petitioner
seeking judicial review approaching the court late in the day. There is
also the aspect relating to the Court's jurisdiction not extending to
permit to so sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government of the
day, particularly in matters relating to purchase of the good involved in
this case. Therefore, in regard to review, sought in relation to the
findings relating to the judicial review, they cannot be found to be
suffering from palpable errors.”
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
find any grounds that there is a discovery of any new and important point,
error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason to
allow the review applications. Therefore, the Review applications are
dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
02.02.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
Note :In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2022
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
sji
REV.APLC(MD)Nos.26, 27,
28 and 29 of 2022
02.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
