2013 (8) TMI 912 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012.
2. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India.
3. Criteria for entertaining a review petition.
4. Examination of the original orders and FIR related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project.
5. Validity of the CBI's actions and jurisdiction in lodging the FIR.

Analysis:

1. Review of the Judgment and Order Dated 06.07.2012:
The petitioner, Kamlesh Verma, sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 06.07.2012, which quashed the FIR against Ms. Mayawati related to disproportionate assets. The Court had previously held that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction as the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets against Ms. Mayawati.

2. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India:
Article 137 provides the Supreme Court with the power to review its judgments or orders. This power is subject to any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. The jurisdiction of review is not equivalent to an appeal and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

3. Criteria for Entertaining a Review Petition:
Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, outline the grounds for review:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence.
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason.

The Court emphasized that a review is not a rehearing and cannot be used to reargue the same points unless there is a glaring omission or patent mistake.

4. Examination of the Original Orders and FIR Related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project:
The Court reviewed the sequence of orders and actions leading up to the FIR:
- The CBI was directed to investigate the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and verify the assets of the persons involved.
- An FIR was lodged against Ms. Mayawati for disproportionate assets based on the CBI's inquiry.
- The Court had previously quashed this FIR, stating that the orders did not authorize such an investigation.

The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged under the Court's directions, but the Court reiterated that its earlier orders did not authorize a roving inquiry into Ms. Mayawati's assets.

5. Validity of the CBI's Actions and Jurisdiction in Lodging the FIR:
The Court concluded that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the FIR against Ms. Mayawati for disproportionate assets. The investigation was supposed to be limited to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project, and there was no specific direction from the Court to investigate her assets beyond this project.

Conclusion:
The review petition was disposed of, reaffirming the original judgment. The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case. The CBI's actions in lodging the FIR were beyond the scope of the Court's directions, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review.