Madras High Court
C.Arumugam vs The Chairman on 22 October, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
Rev.Applw.No.180/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
Rev.Applw.No.180/2024
C.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman
State Level Scrutiny Committee II
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai
Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2.The Secretary
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai -1. ... Respondents
Prayer : Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with
Section 114 of CPC to review the judgment in WP.No.9995/2021 dated
12.04.2024 and pass order allowing the writ petition.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Applw.No.180/2024
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For R1 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG assisted by
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)The present review application is filed to review the order passed by this
Court dated 12.04.2024 in WP.No.9995/2021.
(2)Even though common issues were decided by this Court after hearing
lengthy arguments from different counsels, this Court gave certainly, a
liberty to the learned counsels to present the facts in individual cases.
Thereafter, this Court also recorded the facts in each individual cases
which were decided by the common order dated 12.04.2024.
(3)The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner is deprived of a fair opportunity in proving his case.
Learned counsel pointed out that the report of the Vigilance Cell was not
supplied to the review applicant. Learned counsel therefore, suggested
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that in normal circumstance, this Court would have at least remitted the
matter for giving further opportunity in tune with principles of natural
justice as has been held in many cases.
(4)This Court has consciously recorded the facts and came to the conclusion
that the applicant herein was not cooperative. He refused to participate in
the enquiry on the ground that the issue regarding community certificate
cannot be raised after his retirement. Referring to the fact that retirement
benefits have been settled, the petitioner/review applicant requested the
1st respondent herein to drop the proceedings initiated for verification of
his community status.
(5)It is also to be noted that the petitioner despite raising several grounds on
facts, has not placed not even a single record which would clinchingly or
convincingly show that he has a valid case on merits if he is given an
opportunity.
(6)Having regard to the reasons stated in the order dismissing the writ
petition, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record to
entertain this review application.
(7)It is settled that a review application is not an appeal in dsguise. Unless
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
there is an error apparent and the matter falls within the purview of Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC, there is no scope for entertaining the review
application. When this Court has given reasons not to accept the plea that
the order impugned in the writ petition is in violation of principles of
natural justice, there is no other factual basis for entertaining the review
on merits. It is also settled that an error which has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, will not fall within the scope of review.
(8)When the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed for specific reasons
especially referring to the conduct of the petitioner, this Court finds no
scope for reviewing our judgment.
(9)Accordingly, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
22.10.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Chairman
State Level Scrutiny Committee II
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai
Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2.The Secretary
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai -1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,
AP
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
