TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct an inquiry on the basis of the I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/persons concerned in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report. By means of an order dated 21.08.2003 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of ₹ 17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project. (b) The CBI-Respondent No. 2 therein submitted a report on 11.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of order dated 18.09.2003 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 696 wherein the CBI was directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into the registration of an FIR being No. 0062003A0018 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Preventio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court which reads as under: Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. 6) Order XLVII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for an application for review which reads as under: Any person considering himself aggrieveda) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. 7) Further, Part VIII ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. 9) In a criminal proceeding, review is permissible on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. In M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, this Court, in paragraph Nos. 8 9 held as under: 8. It is well-settled 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 Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib this Court observed : A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. 11) 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. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court, in Parsion Devi Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, held as under: 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: 1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. Under Order XL Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule as was held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233, it was held: [I]t is essential that it should 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise. 14) Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court, in Jain Studios Ltd. vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under: 11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 17) Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out for interference exercising review jurisdiction. 18) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions have been made, dealt with and duly considered at length and it was clarified that anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject matter of reference before the Taj Corridor Bench and the CBI is not justifying in proceeding with FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 since the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against Ms. Mayawati- Respondent No. 1 herein. 21) After dealing with all those orders exhaustively, the contents of the FIR dated 05.10.2003 and taking note of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571, this Court, in Mayawati vs. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 106 arrived at the following conclusion: 39. As discussed above and after reading all the orders of this Court which are available in the compilation , we are satisfied that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the fundamental rights did not issue any direction to CBI to conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the petitioner commencing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed once again, in the light of the principles noted above, we are of the view that the same are impermissible. 22) We have also noted the principles enunciated in H.N. Rishbud (supra) as well as in Vineet Narain (supra). For the sake of repetition, we are pointing out that we have disposed of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner therein (respondent herein) based on the relief sought for, contents of the FIR dated 05.10.2003, earlier directions relating to Taj Heritage Corridor Project and arrived at such conclusion. 23) It is also made clear that we have not gone into any other aspect relating to the claim of the CBI, intervener or the stand of the writ petitioner therein (respondent herein) except the directions relating to Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was the only lis before us in Writ Petition being No. 135 of 2008. In such circumstances and in the light of enormous decisions, we find that there is no material within the parameters of review jurisdiction to go into the earlier order dated 06.07.2012. 24) In the light of the above discussion, we once again reiterate that our decision is based on earlier directions relating to Taj Heritage Corridor Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
