High Court of Meghalaya
The Union Of India & Ors. vs . Rafique Uddin Barbhuiya & Ors. on 17 March, 2022
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC (Review Pet.) No. 2 of 2022
Date of order: 17.03.2022
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rafique Uddin Barbhuiya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Debnath, CGC
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Syngkon, Adv.
This is another of those misconceived review petitions filed after one
of the judges who was a party to the Bench is no longer available in this
Court.
The essence of the challenge in the review is that adequate reasons
have not been furnished in the order under review dated October 26, 2021
in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein an
order of December 10, 2018 passed by the Guwahati Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal was called into question. The review petitioners
assert that relevant considerations were not taken into account by this Court
while passing the order of October 26, 2021, particularly the fact that by
virtue of a rule embodied in an office memorandum of May 3, 1993, the
relevant post was deemed to have been abolished.
Grounds for review are quite dissimilar to and distinct from grounds
that may be canvassed in an appeal. Ordinarily, the primary ground that is
urged in course of a review is that there is error apparent on the face of the
order under review. Such an error as may make a ground for review would
be an error evident in the order itself without reference to any other material
or would be when an obvious and glaring fact may have been overlooked. A
review may also be filed when a key aspect of a matter that was urged before
the Court was not taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudicating
the matters in issue. A third case where a review may be carried is upon the
review petitioner discovering new material that, despite the exercise of best
diligence on the part of such petitioner, could not be produced at the time of
adjudication. There is also a residuary ground, but that has to be read
ejusdem generis with the three previous grounds and must be of similar
import.
While an appeal, depending on the scope of the appeal, can
sometimes lead to the entire matter being reopened as in the case of a regular
first appeal from a decree, the extent of inquiry in a review is quite limited.
An error of judgment or an error of interpretation cannot be corrected in a
review.
For the reasons aforesaid, this misadventure has to be nipped in the
bud. In effect, the review petitioner desires the entire gamut of the matter to
be reconsidered, which is impermissible in a review.
Accordingly, MC (Review Pet.) No. 2 of 2022 is dismissed with
costs assessed at Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the Meghalaya State Legal
Authority within a period of six weeks from date.
Review Petition No. 6 of 2022 along with MC [Review Petition] No.
4 of 2022 are also disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
17.03.2022
"Sylvana PS"
