ORDER

1. The review applicant is the 3^rd respondent in the Appeal. The Appeal was filed challenging the order of the Pollution Control Appellate Authority’s closure order dated 06.12.2019 issued against the review applicant which was set aside by the appellate authority.

2. The appeal was disposed on merits holding that the review applicant had complied with all the conditions of consent as well as directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. However, the 3^rd party appellant had challenged the maintainability of the Appeal against the composite order giving directions under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

3. The review applicant has submitted that Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes orders in the nature of directions issued under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 also. He has also submitted that against composite orders separate appeals can be filed one under the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 before the Appellate Authority and another under the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 before the National Green Tribunal given the scheme of the Air Act, Water Act and National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Therefore, a ground has been raised that an appeal filed against the directions issued under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Board can be maintained.

3.1 This Tribunal had elaborately considered the question of maintainability of the appeal in the case where composite orders are passed by the Pollution Control Appellate Authority. Upon considering various dictums including the ‘Sterlite Case’ this Tribunal had passed the detailed order under Review.

4. The basic principles on which the Review Application could be entertained have been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court a review could be maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a discovery of a new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The ground raised by the review applicant do not make out such an error apparent on the face of the record nor has brought out any new and important fact which was omitted.

5. The Review Application filed by the applicant may not be maintainable as repetition of old and over-ruled arguments are not enough to re-open concluded adjudication. The applicant has only highlighted the maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Authority which is already discussed by this Tribunal and the orders sought to be reviewed were passed. Therefore, the applicant cannot re-agitate the same facts as that of the original hearing of the case. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby a decision, however, erroneous may be can be re-heard or corrected unless an error apparent on the face of the record is made out. A mere possibility of two views on a subject cannot be a ground for review.

6. The review applicant also has not made out any case as the reliefs sought for by him in the Review Application and the grounds on which the same is filed were argued at the time when the main matter was heard and negatived.

7. Merely because the appeals were allowed on the ground of maintainability which is against the review applicant, the Review Application cannot be maintained for the reason that the applicant is not satisfied with the findings. If the review applicant is not satisfied of the reasoning given by the Tribunal, it is a matter for appeal and review to re-agitate the same issues cannot be entertained.

8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Review Application, therefore, the Review Application stands dismissed.

..........

.....................