P.Baskar (Postman) v. S.Balaji
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
1. R.Baskar
2. A.Palanirajan ..
Appellants v.
1. S.Balaji
2. The Returning Officer Deputy Registrar T.N.C.P.C.Bank General Body Election T.N.C.P.C. Bank (Tamil Nadu Circle Postal Co-operative Bank Ltd) No.18/19, Jehangir Street Second Line Beach Road Chennai 600 001
3. The Deputy Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, North Block New Delhi 110 001
4. S.Balasubramanian
5. G.B.Pradeepkumar
6. K.A.Sultan Mohideen
7. The Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Postal Circle Chennai 600 002 ..
Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Review Application No.241 of 2022 in W.P.No.18235 of 2022.
For Appellant ::
Mr.E.Vinothkumar For Respondents ::
Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy Central Government Standing Counsel for R3 & R7
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Review Application No.241 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.18235 of 2022.
2. At the outset, this writ appeal is not legally maintainable, in view of the provision of Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which reads as under:- "(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit."
3. A perusal of the above legal provision shows that an order of the Court rejecting the review application shall not be appealable, but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application. Secondly, the impugned order clearly shows that the appellant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Thirdly, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of District Collector and others v. N.Udayappan and another, (2021) 2 CTC 369, has succinctly held in paragraph 61(iv) that ordinarily, an order refusing to entertain a review against an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and, thereby, not entertaining the further material sought or grounds to be relied upon or reconsidering the original basis of the order,
would not be appealable. The Hon'ble Full Bench has also held in paragraph 61(ii) that an appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the additional material or grounds that are referred to or urged are considered or a further consideration on merits is evident from the order. In the case on hand, the review application was not even entertained and no additional material or grounds were urged or argued, as the Court has threadbare dealt with all the arguments of the writ petitioner and touched upon all the grounds made in the writ petition.
4. For the aforementioned three reasons, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.2438, 2439 & 2441 of 2023 are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.B.C.,J.) Index : yes/no 09.02.2023 ss
To
1. The Deputy Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, North Block New Delhi 110 001
2. The Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Postal Circle Chennai 600 002
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
ss 09.02.2023