Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Dhananjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Airports Authority of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9687/2019, W.P.(C) 10697/2019,W.P.(C) 9716/2019
Decided On : 01-05-2023
Review Petitions - Scope of Review - S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595; M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167; Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 - The court dismissed the review petitions filed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2020, whereby three writ petitions were decided. The court delineated the scope and ambit of interference by the Court while deciding a review petition, emphasizing that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. The court highlighted the principles from S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing that the power of review cannot be exercised to substitute a view and merely because two views on the said subject are possible, it is not a ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength. The court concluded that there was no error apparent in the judgment and AAI cannot be permitted to re-argue the matter in the garb of seeking a Review.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment disposed of three review petitions filed by Airport Authority of India (AAI) under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2020, whereby three writ petitions being W.P.(C) 9687/2019, W.P.(C) 9716/2019 and W.P.(C) 10697/2019 have been decided. The original writ Petitioners are Respondents in the review petitions and are being referred to as Petitioners hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the review petitions, emphasizing that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. The court highlighted the principles from S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing that the power of review cannot be exercised to substitute a view and merely because two views on the said subject are possible, it is not a ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength. The court concluded that there was no error apparent in the judgment and AAI cannot be permitted to re-argue the matter in the garb of seeking a Review.
Issues: The issues revolved around the scope and ambit of interference by the Court while deciding a review petition, the power of review, and the principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. The court highlighted the principles from S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing that the power of review cannot be exercised to substitute a view and merely because two views on the said subject are possible, it is not a ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review petitions, concluding that there was no error apparent in the judgment and AAI cannot be permitted to re-argue the matter in the garb of seeking a Review.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
REVIEW PET. 154/2020 in W.P.(C) 9687/2019
REVIEW PET. 155/2020 in W.P.(C) 10697/2019
REVIEW PET. 152/2020 in W.P.(C) 9716/2019
1. This judgment will dispose of three review petitions filed by Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the `AAI') under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2020, whereby three writ petitions being W.P.(C) 9687/2019, W.P.(C) 9716/2019 and W.P.(C) 10697/2019 have been decided. Original writ Petitioners are Respondents in the review petitions and are being referred to as Petitioners hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Before embarking on the journey to decide whether the judgement dated 26.02.2020 entails a review on merits, it is important to delineate the scope and ambit of interference by the Court while deciding a review petition.
3. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Supreme Court held that review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration and basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, yet in the realm of law, Courts and even Statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decisions legally and properly made. Exceptions, both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. In M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, the Supreme Court considered the powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and held as follows:
"8. It is well-ettled 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 a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845: (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948: (1965) 1 SCJ 377]. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta [(1971) 3 SCC 189: 1971 SCC (Cri) 279: (1971) 3 SCR 748, 750]. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi [(1971) 3 SCC 5: (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27]. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility": Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674: 1975 SCC (Tax) 200: (1975) 3 SCR 933]."
4. In Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Supreme Court held that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view and review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. The Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which provide that an application for review of a judgment/order/ decree, from which no appeal is allowed or where appeal is allowe
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. The court emphasized that the....
The court upheld that eligibility criteria for employment must be strictly adhered to, and ambiguity in advertisements should favor candidates only when clearly warranted.
Review petitions can only correct apparent errors on record; they cannot rehash previously settled arguments. Employees are entitled to executive pay scales when performing duties of a higher post, d....
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
The employer has the final authority to determine eligibility criteria for employment, and experience from a non-IPP entity cannot be considered valid for the purpose of recruitment.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment positions must be strictly adhered to, and employment status significantly impacts qualification assessment under employer-defined guidelines.
Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to apparent errors in the record or new evidence; acceptance of a reduced pay scale upon appointment restricts subsequent claims for higher pay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
