9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF INDIA ORS. [ 2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT ] the Hon ble Apex Court held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. In ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA [ 1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT ], the Hon ble Apex Court observed that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. It may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. In KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATI ORS. [ 2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT ] after discussing various decisions on the scope of review jurisdiction, the Hon ble Apex Court summarized the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and its authorities preferred writ petitions as mentioned above. All the writ petitions have been dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench. The writ petitioners of the writ petitions have preferred the respective review applications as mentioned above. 4. In W.P.No.29006 of 2023 the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of material fact. On a specific query made to the learned Government Pleader, if that finding of the Tribunal was challenged in the writ petition, he fairly submitted that there was no challenge to such finding before the writ Court. 5. The review petitions are being considered and decided by this common judgment as they arise of common judgment and common arguments have been advanced. Judgment under Review: 6. The Coordinate Bench, deciding the writ petitions was of the view that the criminal cases related to trivial offences and were during the young age of the respondents. They had already been acquitted, even prior to issuance of the notification for recruitment. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar vs. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to those paragraphs 21 and 22 which are in the nature of law and absence of any challenge to such law, the said law not having been declared ultra vires, and those paragraphs 21 and 22 not having been quashed, which was in the domain of the judicial power, but not having been done so, the judgment under review cannot be legally sustained. He argued that what the law is or has been, is a judicial power but what the law shall be is a legislative power, placing reliance in the case of S.S. Bola and others vs. B.D. Sardana and others 1997) 8 SCC 522 Submissions of the learned counsels for Respondents: 9. Learned Counsels for the respondents submitted that the judgment does not suffer from any apparent error of law. The review petitions deserve to be dismissed. They placed reliance in the cases of Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association through its General Secretary and others (2020) 2 SCC 1 , and in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another (2024) 2 SCC 362 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. Analysis: Scope in Review: Precedents: 11. We first proceed to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . 14. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India 2000) 6 SCC 224 the Hon ble Apex Court held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Relevant part of Paragraphs-56 and 58 is 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 exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. Mr Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, C.J. in Batuk K. Vyas v. SuratBorough Municipality [AIR 1953 Bom 133 : 54 Bom LR 922] that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self- evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram(AIR 1922 PC 112) and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (1955 SCR 520). 17. Recently, in State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim 2024 SCC OnLine SC 548 the Hon ble Apex Court reiterated that a decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident on the face of record. The error should be grave enough to be identified on a mere cursory look, and an omission so glaring that it requires interference in the form of a rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, 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 20. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 after discussing various decisions on the scope of review jurisdiction, the Hon ble Apex Court summarized the principles for exercise of the review jurisdiction, also laying down when the review would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch submission was not raised before the Coordinate Bench deciding the writ petition. No ground was taken by the petitioner. Any such argument on that aspect not having been raised the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the review petition. It cannot be said that the judgment under review suffers from any apparent error of law in that count. There was no occasion for the writ court to enter into such aspect of the matter. By raising such a new ground, the review petitioner, in fact, is travelling beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction and is trying to re-argue the matter on merits by raising additional ground, which is not permissible. Learned GP has placed reliance in paragraph Nos.157 158 of S.S.Bola (supra) which are as under: 157. To declare what the law is or has been is a judicial power. To declare what the law shall be is a legislative power. This is the principle deducible from the decision of the Federal Court in Basanta Chandra Ghose v. Emperor [AIR 1944 FC 86 : (1944) 6 FCR 295] AIR at p. 90 and Ogden v. Blackledge [2 L Ed 276 : 2 Cranch 272 (1804)] L Ed at p. 278. 158. It would be within the exclusive domain of the judiciary to expound the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration the judgment in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). 26. To consider the first submission of the learned GP, we would refer to the recent judgment in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P 2024 SCC OnLine SC 180 wherein the Hon ble Apex Court observed that the vexed question is back again . Is it a hard and fast and a cut and dried rule that, in all circumstances, non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate is acquitted) in the verification form is fatal for the candidate s employment? 27. In Ravindra Kumar (supra) on consideration of various previous pronouncements including Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 , Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. 2011) 14 SCC 709 , Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 , Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 17 SCC 696 and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2023) 7 SCC 536 , the Hon ble Apex Court observed and held that the nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio eco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects . 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. (Emphasis supplied) 29. The case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 was noticed in Avtar Singh (supra) on this aspect in Ravindra Kumar (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravindra Kumar (supra) is as follows: 33. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario. 31. We have referred the judgment of Ravindra Kumar (supra) in which Avtar Singh (supra), Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra), Ram Kumar (supra) have been recently considered. All these judgments were considered by the Writ Court (Division Bench) of which judgment is under review. We may not be understood as testing the judgment under review on merits for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers from any apparent error of law on that count. 34. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance in the State of Rajashthan and others vs. Chetan Jeff 2022 SCC OnLine SC 597 which it appears was what has been held in Chetan (supra) is almost the same as in the Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) which was placed and was considered, we proceed to consider the scope of review as also and thereafter if the case for review was made or not. 35. With respect to the scope of review it has repeatedly been held that in the exercise of review jurisdiction, neither the Court can sit in appeal nor it is open for review petitioner to reagitate and reargue the questions which had already been addressed and decided by the writ Court. It is not permissible to allow the review petition to be re-heard and decide as an appeal in disguise. The present review petitions are an effort in the nature of second commencement of re-hearing of writ petitions which is impermissible. Conclusion: 36. The judgments under review do not suffer from any apparent error of law. No case for review is made out. Result: 37. All the Review Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
