1998 Supreme(SC) 508

1998(4) Supreme 201
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Cuttack)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Sri Gopabandhu Biswal etc. -Appellants
versus
Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3451-3455 of 1996
With
C.A. Nos. 3456-3457 of 1996
And
C.A. Nos. 3458-3460 of 1996
Decided on 21-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A.No. 3451-55/96 : A.K. Panda, Advocate.
For the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 3456-57/96 : Janaranjan Das, Debasis Mohanty and K.N. Tripathy, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 3458-60/96: Bijoy Anand, Sr. Advocate, Gautam Acharya and A.P. Medh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Jayant Das, Sr. Advocate, Raj Kumar Mehta, P.N. Misra, S. Misra, and A. Mahapatra, Advocates.

Important Point
The Tribunal was not entitled to, and ought not to have entertained the Review applications once the SLP from the main judgment and order had been dismissed.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Promo­tion to I.P.S.-Deputy Superintendent of Police eligible for promotion-Assistant Commandants in Orissa Military Police whether equal to Deputy Superintendent of Police-Earlier CAT, Cuttack holding both are of same cadre-Later in Review petition held them to be separate and different-Whether Review petition was maintainable in law? (No)-Proper course indicated (Adminis­trative Tribunals Act, 1985 -Section 22(3)(f)-CPC, 1908-Order 47 Rule 1-CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987-Rule 17).

       Held : The power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a civil court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself aggrie­ved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order 47 Rule 1(1)(a). An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. In the present case, a special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judg­ment of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1 of 1989 to this Court, and the special leave petition was rejected. As a result the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1 of 1989 became final and binding. The rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitu­tion, in effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed against final and binding. Once a special leave petition is filed and rejected, the party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review. (Para 8)

       Held : In the present case all the grounds which were urged in review were, in fact, urged before the Tribunal at the time when the Tribunal decided the main application and they were also urged by the petitioner in the special leave petition which was filed before this Court. The special leave petition has been dis­missed. The same grounds cannot be again urged by way of a review petition by another party who was not a party in the main petition. (Para 10)

       According to the applicants certain documents though produced before the Tribunal were not noticed by the Tribunal in deciding the main matter. Even so, once a judgment of a Tribunal has attain­ed finality, it cannot be reopened after the special leave petition against that judgment has been dismissed. The only remedy for a person who wants to challenge that judgment is to file a separate application before the Tribunal in his own case are persuade the Tribunal either to refer the question to a larger Bench or, if the Tribunal prefers to follow its earlier decision, to file an appeal from the Tribunal’s judgment and have the Tribunal’s judgment set aside in appeal. A review is not an available remedy. (Para 11)

       Held further : A review petition must be within the scope of Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Order 47 Rule 1 and must comply with the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribu­nals Act. The pre­sent review applications are not within the princi­ples laid down in Order 47 Rule 1. They also do not comply with the relevant Rules. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Proce­dure) Rules, 1987 prescribes, inter alia, that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed. In the present case the review petitions were filed one and a half years after the main judgment was delivered and one year after the special leave petition was dismissed. We do not find any explanation for this delay. (Para 12)

       It is difficult to include the applicants in the review applica­tions in the category of “persons aggrieved”. (Para 13)

       Held consequently : In our view the Tribunal was not entitled to, and ought not to have enter­tained the review applications once the special leave petition from the main judgment and order had been dismissed. (Para 14)

       But held : The Tribunal also had before it, three other applications which were filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The Tribunal had dismissed these applications in view of having al­lowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order in T.A. No. 1 of 1989. In view of the fact that the Tribunal’s judgment in review applications cannot be sustained, the Tribunal will be required to examine these three applications filed before it on merit and dispose them of in accordance with law. (Para 15)

       Held finally : We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal in review applications and remand the Original Applications Nos. 276, 277 and 278 of 1993 for fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Para 17)