Telangana High Court

Bommadeni Ram Mohan vs Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud on 6 September, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                Review I.A. No.1 of 2024
                           in
                 W.P. No. 24093 of 2008

                               AND

                  C.C.No.870 of 2024
                           in
                 W.P. No. 24093 of 2008


COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of review

petitioners/Contemnors and Sri N. Ashok Kumar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ

Petitioner/respondent No.1.

2. The present review has been filed seeking prayer

as under :

"...in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, deserves to be reviewed for the above grounds and also grounds which are to be urged at the time of hearing and pass such other or further orders ..."

3. The learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners mainly

puts forth the following submissions :

SN, J 2 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

a) Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-18 of Classification, Control and

Appeal Rules 1991 needs to be considered in the present case

since when the order of removal/dismissal has been set aside

on technical grounds without going into merits of the case,

Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-18 of Classification, Control and Appeal

Rules 1991 applies, hence the Authority competent to impose

the penalty decides to hold a further enquiry into the

allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or

compulsory retirement was originally imposed, and the

Government servants shall be deemed to have been placed

under suspension by the Authority competent to impose the

suspension from the date of original order of dismissal,

removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to

remain under suspension until further orders. The said rule

position was not properly brought to the notice of the Court,

when the order of removal was set aside in W.P.No.24093 of

2008, dated 05.06.2023, and hence, the present Review has

to be allowed.

b) The period of removal from the date of removal of the

petitioner to the date of setting aside of the same in the

present writ petition is for a period of fifteen years and if at all SN, J 3 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

the order has to be implemented by reinstating

the petitioner into service, there will be a financial implication

of about one crore on the public exchequer, and hence the

order under Review needs to be reconsidered.

c) The order of removal which has been set aside in

W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, is not on the

ground of illegal removal but was only on account of non-

providing an opportunity of cross-examination and also non-

furnishing of vigilance report to the petitioner. Therefore,

since it is purely technical in nature, and as such Sub-Rule-4

of Rule- 18 of TS (CC&A) and Conduct Rules 1991, would

clearly attract and hence, Review Petitioners are entitled for

the relief as claimed for in the present Review Petition.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the review peittioners places

reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State

of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Katheria

reported in (2021) 14 SCC 668, dated 23.09.2019 in

support of the review petitioners' case and contends

that the order of this Court, dated 05.06.2023 passed in SN, J 4 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in so far as directing

reinstatement of the petitioner forthwith without back

wages from the date of dismissal till the date of

reinstatement needs to be set aside and the order of

the Court, dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No. 24093

of 2008 has to be reconsidered and reviewed

accordingly.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ

Petitioner on the other hand submits that there is no error

apparent on the face of the record and hence, the review

petition cannot be entertained and the same needs to be

dismissed in view of the detailed reasoned orders, dated

05.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in

favour of the petitioner referring to various judgments.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

6. Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Court 1908

which governs the grounds on which a judgment or an

order can be reviewed is extracted hereunder :

a) From the discovery of new and important matters or evidence after the exercise of due SN, J 5 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant;

(b) Such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the knowledge of the applicant; at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and

This Court is of the firm opinion that none of the

above referred grounds exist in the present case that

warrant interference by this Court at the present stage

in the present Review Petition.

7. In the judgment of Apex Court in Lily Thomas vs.

Union of India, dated 05.04.2000 reported in 2000 (6)

SCC 224 in particular at para No. 56, it is observed as

under :

"56 - It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but 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 like an appeal in disguise.

SN, J 6 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

The submissions and the pleas put-forth by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Review

Petitioners do not include a misconception of fact or

law by this Court, since there is no error or mistake

apparent on the face of record that warrants review of

the order dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No. 24093

of 2008.

8. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 1980

(2) SCC 167, dated 21.12.1979 in Northern India

Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi observed

at para No. 8 as under :

Para 8 : It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and for a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

In the present case, this Court opines that no

circumstances of a substantial and compelling SN, J 7 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

character exist that warrant interference by

this Court for passing of orders in favour of the review

petitioners.

9. The boundary within which the power of review

under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC 1908 has to be exercised

has been demarcated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

its recent judgment in Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai

Kannan, dated 24.02.2023 reported in (2023) SCC

OnLine SC 185 and at para No. 5.1 of the said judgment

it is observed as under:

"5.1. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly SN, J 8 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, this Court had summed upon as under:

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

SN, J 9 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.

This Court opines that the Review petitioners failed

to convince this Court with sufficient reasons for

exercise of power of Review by this Court in the

present case.

10. The Apex Court Judgment dated 18.08.2022

reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 685 in "S.Madhusudhan

Reddy v. V.Narayana Reddy and others", in particular,

at paragraph No. 26, observed as under:

"26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could SN, J 10 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court; however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule".

11. It would be apt to discuss the jurisdiction of this

Court to review its own judgment. After examining a

catena of Supreme Court Judgments (1) Sasi D through

LRS v Aravindakshan Nair and Others reported in

(2017) 4 SCC, dated 03.03.2017, para Nos. 6 to 9; (2)

Haridas Das v Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, dated 21.03.2006 paras

15 to 18; (3) Parsion Devi v Sumitri Devi reported in

1997 (8) SCC 715, dated 14.10.1997, para Nos. 7 to 10;

(4) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma

reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, dated 25.01.1979 para

No. 3 the principles that emerge from a perusal of the

land-mark Supreme Court Judgments on the issue of

review, are enlisted below:

SN, J 11 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

A) The power to review is inherent in the High Court and the High Court can review its own order/judgment passed in a writ petition.

B) This power of review is a limited power and would be governed by the principles of Section 151 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

C) Firstly, a Court can review its own judgment when there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was in spite of exercise of due diligence not within the knowledge or could not be produced due to cogent reasons by the party seeking a review. Secondly, the court may review its order or judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Thirdly, a residuary clause in Rule 1 of Order XLVII provides for a review for any other sufficient reason'. It is to be noted that the Apex Court on several occasions has held that the third condition "for any other sufficient reason" has to be read within the four corners of the first two conditions.

D) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

E) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". There is a sharp distinction between an erroneous decision that SN, J 12 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

can be only appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review.

12. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in

(2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362 in "Sanjay Kumar

Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) and another", at

paragraph No.16 observed as under:

"16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. 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.

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

SN, J 13 Review I.A.1_2024 & CC_870 of 2024 in WP_24093_2008

13. This Court is firm of the opinion that given the

limited scope of review, as explained in the various

Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted

above), i) 2000 (6) SCC 224, dated 05.04.2000, ii) 1980

(2) SCC 167, dated 21.12.1979, iii) (2023) SCC Online

SC 185, dated 24.02.2023, iv) 2022 Live Law (SC) 685,

dated 18.08.2022 and v) 2024 (2) SCC Page 362, this

Court is not inclined to entertain the present Review,

since the same is devoid of merits and hence, the same

is accordingly dismissed.