Review jurisdiction limited to errors apparent on record; no reargument allowed. Environmental laws bind infrastructure projects despite national importance.

ORDER

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This Review Application has come up at the instance of National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Review applicant’ with the prayer to review and set aside order dated 13.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 892/2022, Prem Mohan Gaur vs. National Highway Authority of India & Others. Several grounds have been taken in Review Application. Virtually, there is an attempt to reargue the matter in detail. This is not permissible in Review Application and a review applicant cannot be allowed to reargue the matter by way of review. The scope of review is very limited.

2. Recently, in Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620/2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661/2020, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Another and other connected matters, decided on 31.10.2023, Supreme Court has observed that the parties are not entitled to seek a review of judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. Applying principles of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is said that a review of judgment is open inter-alia if there is a mistake or 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 record. Supreme Court has culled down following propositions relevant for review of the judgment:

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

ii. 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.

iii. 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 justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

iv. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.

v. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

vi. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

vii. 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.

viii. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

3. Thus, ex-facie this Review Application is liable to be rejected. However, to satisfy ourselves that there is no error apparent on record in the judgment in question and substantial justice has been done, we have considered the objections/issues raised by Review-applicant and our findings are as under:

4. Firstly, it is argued that construction of road was carried out under an agreement dated 21.10.2020 executed between review applicant and M/s. Dineshchandra Giriraj Infra Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Concessionaire’). Under the agreement, aforesaid Concessionaire was obliged to ensure compliance of all the applicable laws while executing the agreement. When questioned, Learned Counsel for review applica