THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 16-06-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S,_C.R. 4 
.. 
~. 
A 
,THE STATE. OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 
B 
II. 
KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2006) 
JUNE 16, 2008 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
· · Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - s. 22 (3) (f) - Power 
of Administrative Tribunal"- To review its decision - Scope of 
c ...:. Held: 1Tribunal's power to review its· order since is akin to that 
of civ/I court, triblfnal is entitled to review its decision only on 
the groun'tls-G;vailable under 0. 47 r. 1 CPC - Tribunal cannot 
review its decision on the basi$ of subsequent deci~ion of a 
coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court 
D ::- In the facts of the case, none of the grounds set outinreview 
petition warranted .exercise of power of review by .the Tribunal 
...,. Code of Civil_Procedure,-1908- s. 14, o. 47-r. 1(as amended · 
in 1976). 
:. 
.. 
. 
. 1' 
< 
" 
' 
• 
• 
• 
'~-,, · ·:The q\jesti9,i;i for ,considerati.on, in the present case, 
· E . was whether a Tribunal established under s. 4 of the Ad-
ministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can review its decision 
on the baSiS ·Of subsequent order/decision/judgment ren-
dered_-by' a co-ordinate. or larger bench or any superior 
F 
court or on the basis. of subseq·uent event/development, 
Allotring the appeal, the Court 
·. 
. HELO.: 1.1 A decision/order cannot' be reviewed un-
der Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 
on the basis. of subsequent decision/judgment of a coor;. 
· 
dinat~ or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior 
CJ 
co.urt. [P~ra,28] [37~~ & o] 
· 
· · 1.2 ·r.he po_wer of th~ Tribunal to review .its order/de•. 
'-cision under ·Section 22(3j{f) of ·the .Act is akin/analogous 
~ to~the power of :a Civil Court undei"Section 114·read witli 
H 
-. 
.4 
.. 
,_ 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. KAMAL 
5 
SENGUPTA & ANR. 
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Tribunal can review its decision A 
on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and 
not otherwise. The expression "any.other sufficient reason"· 
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in. the 
light of other specified grounds. [Para 28] [36; G 37-A & BJ 
~ 
1.3 While considering an application for review, the 
8 
-· -. Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to 
material which was available at the time of initial decision. 
The happening of some subsequent event or develop-
ment cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial or-
der/decision as vitiated by an error apparent An errone-
C 
ous order/decision cannot be corrected in ~he guise of 
exercise of power of review. [Para 28] [37-C, D & E] 
1.4 An error which is not self-evident and which can 
be discovered by a long process of reasoning, ea,n~ot be 0 
treated as an error apparent on the face of record justify-. 
ing exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). Mere discov- · 
ery of new or important matter or evidence is not suffi-
cient ground for review. The party seeking review has also 
to show that such matter or evidence was not within its 
knowledge and even after. the exercise of due diligence, 
E 
the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribu-
nal earlier. [Para 28] [37-8,C,F & G] 
Rajah Kotagiri Venkata S_ubamma Rao vs. Rajah 
Vellanki Venkatrama Rao 1990 (27) Indian Appeals 197; Sir F 
Hari Shankat Pal and another vs. Anath Nath Mitter and Ors. 
1949· FCR 36; Moran Mar Ba_sselios Cath.olicos and Anr vs. 
The Most Rev. Mar Pou lose Athanasius ·and Ors. 1995 (1) 
, SCR 520; Par_sion Devi and Ors. vs. Sumitfi Devi and Ors. . . 
. . 1997 (8) SCC 715; Haridas Oas vs. Usha Rani Banik and G 
. Ors. 2006 (4) sec 78; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma VS. Aribam 
Pishak Sharma ; K. Ajit Babu and Ors. vs. Union of India and 
Ors.1997 (6) SCC 473; Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa 
and Ors. 1999 (9) sec 596; State of Haryana and Ors. VS. 
M.P Moh/a 2007 (1) SCC 457; Gopa/ Singh vs. State Cadre 
H 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10. S.C.R. 
A 
Forest Officers'Assn . .and Ors. 2007 (9) SCC 369 - relied on. 
B 
Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. vs. Union of India 2005 (4) 
SCC 67; Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket 
Clvb 2005 (4) SCC 741; K. T Veerappa vs. State of Karnataka 
2006 (9) sec 406 - distinguished. 
Gopabandhu Biswal vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and 
Ors. 1998 (4) SCC 447; State of UP vs. J.P Chaurasia 1989 
, (1) sec· 121; State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs Prabhakar 
Bhikaji Ingle .1996 (3) SCC 463; Union of India vs. Pradip 
c Kumar Dey 2000 (8) SCC 580

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.