9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copy of the special leave petition was not served upon the review petitioner which is a necessary and relevant party to the subject-matter in issue/dispute and the review petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard. 3) It is also brought to our notice that vide notification dated 30.01.2003, the Ministry of Coal and Mines was bifurcated into separate Ministries since the petitioners in various SLPs furnished the name of the Ministry as "Ministry of Coal and Mines" in all the matters and according to them, it was not noticed by the Department concerned, namely, the Department of Mines. 4) We are conscious of the fact that the principles of natural justice guarantee every person the right to represent his/her case in the court of law, wherein the final verdict of the court would adversely affect his/her interest. Considering the above principle, this Court, vide order dated 04.10.2012, granted the opportunity to the Union of India to represent its case. 5) Before considering the claim of the Union of India about acceptability or otherwise of various conclusions in the impugned judgment, we have to consider whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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." 12) Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; iii)Any other sufficient reason 13) The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". With the above statutory provisions, let us discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been misquoted to the extent of adding four lines, which was originally not a part of the report. Thus, this Court has the power to modify the impugned judgment to the extent of deletion of the misquoted statement under review jurisdiction. 18) The Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of Minerals, referred in the impugned judgment reads as under: Para 2.1.21 of the Report: "49...... The concept of first-come, first-serve has become necessary in view of the fact that the Act does not provide for inviting applications through advertisement for grant of PL/ML in respect of virgin areas. No doubt, there is provision in Rule 59 of the MC Rules for advertisement of an area earlier held under PL/ML with provision for relaxation. In this background, the Committee recommended the introduction of the proviso to S. 11(2) permitting calling for applications by way of a notification. There is a distinction between virgin areas and areas covered under Rule 59 and S. 11(2) ought to be interpreted to cover virgin areas alone." 19) Hence, the above underlined portion of the report which is misquoted in the impugned judgment owing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face of the record rather the dispute is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and applicability of Section 11(2) and 11(4) of the MMDR Act. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Hence, in review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment, which we fail to notice in the present case. 25) For the above reasons, the second ground for review petition is liable to be rejected. 26) Further, the contention regarding MoU entered into by the State Government and investments made thereunder is concerned, this Court has noticed this fact and rejected the contention made by the respondents in Sandur (supra). It is relevant to point out that the State of Karnataka is stated to have committed to JSW Steels Limited on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
