Nationalist Power Party v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Present Review Petition has been preferred by the original Petitioner 2021:DHC:3833-DB in W.P.(C) 6704/2021. Writ petition was preferred by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction to the responsible respondents HPCL, BPCL, IOCL, GAIL, ONGC to provide all investigated reports (which was done after sent letter by Under Secretary of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas) to the petitioner/complainant with name and designation of those officials who approved the work which not done according to the standards. (b) Issue order or direction to terminate all officials who was involved in the scams.

(c) Issue order or direction to blacklist all private companies who involved in the scams for 10 years.

(d) Issue order or direction to Central Beuro of Investigation-

CBI to further investigation to all tenders awarded to M/s Honeywell Automation India Ltd., M/s Premier Power Product Pvt. Ltd., M/s Parmar Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Parmar Industries. (e) Pass such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021.

3. We have heard the Review Petitioner, who appears in person and reiterates the arguments addressed when the writ petition was dismissed. Additionally, it is argued that the petition was neither politically motivated nor for publicity and therefore, the finding to that effect needs to be reviewed. It is also contended that the allegations levelled in the writ petition are true and correct and direction needs to be issued by this Court, to enquire into the same. Petitioner also avers and argues that there is substantial evidence to show that there is rampant corruption in some of the PSUs referred to in the writ petition but inadvertently, the Petitioner forgot to attach the relevant documents at the time of filing the writ petition, which would clearly reveal the corruption. Therefore, the order passed by this Court on 22.10.2021 needs to be reviewed and the Petitioner be permitted to place on record certain additional documents, in support of the averments and allegations in the writ petition.

4. We have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case and we see no reason to review our judgment and order dated 26.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 6704/2021. The Review Petitioner has been unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 26.10.2021, entailing a review of the decision. Petitioner concedes that certain documents, which according to him would prove his case, were not filed along with the writ petition. In a review petition, this Court cannot enlarge the scope of the writ petition and permit filing of additional documents so as to enable the Petitioner to make out a new case. Moreover, the Petitioner, it appears, in garb of a Review Petition is seeking to reagitate the same issues which were raised in W.P.(C) 6704/2021, which was dismissed as this Court did not find merit in the issues raised. Nor can this Court be called upon to adjudicate the correctness of the judgment rendered in the writ petition, as an Appellate Court.

5. We may only reiterate our observations in the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021 that the transactions in question go back to the year 2013, allegedly relating to supply of goods to HPCL, BPCL, IOCL, GAIL, ONGC, etc., more particularly, with regard to their quality. The quality of goods supplied is a matter of contract between two contracting parties and one has rights and remedies against the other in terms of the contract for supply of sub-standard goods. It is not for this Court in a writ jurisdiction to enter the said domain, especially when this Court does not have the necessary expertise to ascertain the quality of goods supplied. We are sanguine that necessary action would have been taken by the concerned PSUs in case there were problems with the goods supplied in terms of the supply agreements.

6. Hence, we see no reason to review the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021, passed in W.P.(C) 6704/2021, as there is no error apparent in the said judgment. It is a settled law that even if the judgment is erroneous, a review petition is not tenable at law and the Petitioner may resort to other remedies available in law.

7. In the case of Parsion Devi & Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors., reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras 7 to 9 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 Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined: “What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an „error apparent on the face of the record‟). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an „error apparent on the face of the record‟, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by „error apparent‟. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” (Emphasis ours)

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 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 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 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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”. (Emphasis supplied)

8. In the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mawasi, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 200, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Paras 26, 27 and 34 held as under:

26. At this stage it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasijudicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so. Article 137 empowers this Court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The rules framed by this Court under that article lay down that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under: Order 47 Rule 1: