Dulal Chandra Majumder v. Bibek Roy And ANR

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A
L
A
CRP
No.27
of
2011
Shri
Dulal
Chandra
Majumder,


   

   



                !"! #  !$! %
 #  $&'(
& #  '
 )  *
+  ! .......
Petitioner
-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
1.
Shri
Bibek
Roy,

$  ,
      $
  !"! -   !$! *
 #  $&'(
& #  '
 )  *
+   2.
The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd. , 
 
 )  ( 
 )   - 

. !"! #  !$! %
 #  $&'(
& # '
 )*
+    


       ( )    


  /!+,&01& & 2132#,)4
.

.......
Respondents
B
E
F
O
R
E
THE
HON'BLE
MR.
JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
5     :
 !$4' # ()   5  
 /!1 :
 !'!

!,# ()  5  
 /!2 :
/ ! '    :
10!02!2016

'  (  :27.04.2015
7  8"

*     :

YES NO

√

[2] JUDGMENT
&
ORDER
+ 
 
.
.

 ( .
 )  
 ! 
 .

 
).


   )

  .  
 ))     )

  )!+ .

 ( .)  9 )
 )

) 
4   )   )

 

 ( .! + 

  )   

      ( .
   
 )  
      

     )    

)

! 
 

  (  ) .) 
 :   )

 
! [2]

 
 )4

  
     

 # )  22;  
       

 2<!0=!2011 (

  ( 
) , ( .

 226  200>  
   +!$!#

 /!6>  200? 
  

 :
       ! +  
  
        ) 


)1<< #)  + $#

/!6>200?  #))  
 + *
+  #  ) 

  ) ( ))  
    

 ) ))   0=!0<!200;.  .
 (    

)   


  /!+,&01&#&66<>  
     

(     )4
.    
  /!+,&01& &2132! #
 



  ) (   
  9 30@  





[3]
  )) ! + 
  ( )     /!+,&01& &2132 

)4
.

 .
 


    "

  
 )   ! #    ( !+  .


  ,
!= <; >=<A& . 
 B<@   2>!01!200? 


!  "   )    
       .

22!10!200> (

  +!$!#

6>  200?   


   "

  
 )   !    ( .   

"

C 

, 1  ! !

! 
$ )1$ )1<>  #) ( . 
   !  2.  
!+    ( ) 
.))  ))
 

)   
  

 ) ! $)    )        .
    -(       

    )   ))
     
  ))    )

  (  9
    ) !+

)  
 ( ) (     )        ( 

.   (
  )  
   )! #        
    )  


) 

 )    ( .   
 ) )  

)  ) ( .$ )1=>2  #)   

2<!0=!2011
 
( D On
perusal
of
the
case
record
of
T.S.
(MAC)
59
of
2008
as
well
as
the
judgment
dated
22.10.2009
the
admitted
position
is
that
the
petitioner
was
a
Headmaster
under
the
Department
of
Education,
Government
of
Tripura
at
the
time
of
alleged
accident.
The
petitioner
never
stated
that
because
of
his





[4] disability
he
has
lost
his
service.
On
the
contrary,
it
appears
to
me
that
the
petitioner
is
continuing
his
service.
Since
the
petitioner
is
continuing
his
service
and
hence
apparently
it
is
established
that
there
was
no
loss
of
his
salary
following
his
alleged
disablement
and
so
I
find
that
the
is
not
entitled
to
get
any
amount
towards
his
loss
of
salary
(income)
following
his
disability.
In
other
words,
the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
to
get
Rs.5,99,306/E
which
was
given
to
him
in
original
judgment
dated
22.10.2009
in
T.S.(MAC)
59
of
2008.
Besides
the
above
observation
he
is
entitled
to
get
75%
of
Rs.24,635/E,
i.e.,
Rs.18,476/E
as
award
in
the
original
case
with
the
interest
@6%
(six
per
cent)
per
annum
from
the
date
of
filing
of
T.S.(MAC)
59
of
2008,
i.e.
29.01.2008
till
realisation.

[3] 

) 
( ) 

  

)   ,
!1?=<;A& ,
 %  
  5 

 $9$ (  .
B<@   

     +!$!#

 /! 6>  200? ! ! 2>!01!200? 


!
[4]
 ! $4 '     )
           
 :
   .          
   

 .   )4.       ( .  
)      .         ( .      22!10!200>  ( .) 
) 
     )   )  
)   
  
  .   ( . ) ) )( 

  9        ) ! +  ( .  
) 

 ) )  "

C

, 1  ! !

! !'     )
 
   9  


  (   





[5]

 
    ( )           )    
     

 
    
)  ( . )   (4 ! E  

   .  

     

     
 9)

 
  
)  . 

    
)   ! #    ( .  $ ) 1=>2  #)1>?? 



(  


  ) 
 

 :!E 
    



 ) 
 

  

   ( .   
 )

     9 )   R.D.
Hattangadi
vs.
Pest
Control
(India)
Pvt.
Ltd.
and
Others,

 (1995)
1
SCC
551FSanjay
Batham
vs.
Munnalal
Parihar
and
Others,
 (2011)
10
SCC665Sanjay
Kumar
vs.
Ashok
Kumar
and
Another,
   (2014)
5
SCC
330   Dinesh
Singh
vs.
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company
Limited
and
Another,
 (2014)
9
SCC
241!  !'   )



    )
     9 )   Kalabharati
Advertising
vs.
Hemant
Vimalnath
Narichania
and
others,
 
(2010)
9
SCC
437
.   9) 
  
) 
   (
  (  

( .    ) 

( . (  

    ) )A )A)

)
 

 !$)  

) (
   ) #)1>??)







[6] 9

 .

  ( .  
 
 .    ( .  
)) (   9 )
!+
 

 

( .
 
 (
  . 
)! [5]
 !'!

!,  )
    .       ( )  

  
)    ( )  
 


   
  /!2   ( .    . (   .

      
         


 
   (     
(
    ) )    
    

 

 ) )(       (

  $ )1=>2  #)!E 
. ( 
   






  . 

    .



 ) 
. 
 !

 [6] E(
 
. 
  
   
  .:

 )


 F (i)
Whether
the
tribunal
has
got
the
review
jurisdiction
or
not?

(ii)
Whether
the
impugned
judgment
and
order
has
been
passed
within
the
acknowledged
limits
of
the
review
jurisdiction
or
not?
[7]

 ( .    )
  Kalabharati
Advertising
vs.
Hemant
Vimalnath
Narichania
and
others

 9 )  

   )
    - E    Pranab
Dhar
vs.
Rajesh
Deb
and
another,
 2009
(3)
GLT
504
       
    ( .  
) 





[7]  )

 ) :   (
 ! Kalabharati
Advertising
vs.
Hemant
Vimalnath
Narichania  
   ) 


D 12.
It
is
settled
legal
proposition
that
unless
the
statute/rules
so
permit,
the
review
application
is
not
maintainable
in
case
of
judicial/quasiEjudicial
orders.
In
absence
of
any
provision
in
the
Act
granting
an
express
power
of
review,
it
is
manifest
that
a
review
could
not
be
made
and
the
order
in
review,
if
passed
is
ultra
vires,
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction.
(vide

 

  

        

  ! " #!$and%  "

&"

&  '(

  " # ).
13.
In

 (  )(   " 
  "

&  (

&


 $*"

+$,- .   /  "

&  01 2   3 $4  " ,+ -  ( 5 63 4  %

    . 
 

 7$"+ 7 -"1' (( '(  ((   1 0 

8(   " 3 74$" +
and
"



 
9    

   '(
 3+**74 + " $*!,
this
Court
held
that
the
power
to
 9

(  

 69  ( 8 1

 9   :6((;(68 8  

8(( 6 8 
and
in
the
absence
of
any
provision
in
the
Act/Rules,
review
of
an
earlier
order
is
impermissible
as
review
is
a
creation
of
statute.
Jurisdiction
of
review
can
be
derived
only
from
the
statute
and
thus,
any
order
of
review
in
absence
of
any
statutory
provision
for
the
same
is
nullity
being
without
jurisdiction.
14.
Therefore,
in
view
of
the
above,
the
law
on
the
point
can
be
summarised
to
the
effect
that
in
absence
of
any
statutory
provision
providing
for
review,
entertaining
an
application
for
review
or
under
the
garb
of
clarification/modification/correction
is
not
permissible.
[8]    )


  


       

  
  
   
  .            

 
   

 .  





[8] )4.       ( .  
)    (    
 

       
    ( .  
)! +
  )  

. )
 :
  
  ( ! 
  )   )

       ( .       )
 22!10!200> (

  +  $ #

 /! 6>  200?     


  
  ( ) 

   

 !+  9) 
 
 ))

     
  (  

  

(    )


(

    (  )   ( .  ) 
  
 ))   (

 "



 ,  1    ! !

!  Union
of
India
vs.
Sandur
Manganese
and
Iron
Ores
Limited
and
Others,
   (2013)
8
SCC
337,

     9) 


D 23.
It
has
been
time
and
again
held
that
the
power
of
review
jurisdiction
can
be
exercised
for
the
correction
of
a
mistake
and
not
to
substitute
a
view.
In


(  

    '(

"        '(
 3 $4 7 " $ !<
this
Court
held
as
under:
"9.
Under
Order
47
Rule
1
C.P.C
a
judgment
may
be
open
to
review
inter
alia
if
there
is
a
mistake
or
an
error
apparent
on
the
face
of
the
record.
An
error
which
is
not
selfEevident
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
under
Order
47
Rule

CPC.
In
exercise
of
the
jurisdiction
under
Order
47
Rule

CPC
it
is
not
permissible
for
an
erroneous
decision
to
be
'reheard
and
corrected'.
A
review
petition,
it
must
be
remembered
has
a
limited
purpose
and
cannot
be
allowed
to
be
'an
appeal
in
disguise.'
"





[9] [9]
* 
   

  
    



       )     )

 
  
  & )    ( ) 
)

   
)  ).
 (      ) 

()  .
  

  )     
   
    9   30@! +
 9 )
 
    

     ( .  
)!E )   


 

. 
 
 !
  )

 
  
(    .   .

22!10!200> .  
 )      .
 )


    

! +  
  ( )       



 


  !%( 
 )) ( )  
   )

   
)       
    
 )! *  )
  
 (
 .



$ )22;  
  
   )   (
  
  
) 
   )

 
  
) 
)
!5  
) ) )  
 )F

 :)  


!+  
) ) 
.   



30@  

  

 .(  6(  
        

  
 

 )  ( .!  
 )      




    .
 
G     )


        .
 

     "

 ) $  ! 5   
 





[10]     (  =6 
  (    0=!0<!200;  20!0;!200;    ( .   ( 13 
  (  20!12!200;02!01!200?!  
(       .

22!10!200>         (     # E
    ) ) .   ))  
   
  (  

)   (    (  13


) ))    )) !. 

  

  
 ,
!6000
  ))       ) 
!    
)    ( )      

  )    

 
 



      
   
        
  

 !E ) 
  (  
) 
    
   ) 
  


 D    
   =6 
 
    (          ,
!22;01A&  )
    ,
!1;<36A&



 ,
!1?000A&    
  ,
!160000A& (  

 
 ,
!100000A&




































Total
Rs.2,90,701/E





[11] +,
!2>0;01A& 

,
!2>1000A&,
 +.)
/ " 


!+   
     ) 
.
B<@.! !!2>!01!200? 
! + 
  /!2   "

  
 )   ! 


 )  
 .       
 
 .


)


B>@ 
!

                    

   )       A 
      



 
 
 

)   4  ! * 
 
( 
  

 .

    9 
 ) ( ! + 
 


)

! JUDGE