R. P. Luthra v. Union of India & Anr.

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 01.03.2017, passed in LPA NO. 340/2016. The appeal was dismissed holding inter alia as under:-

2017:DHC:2312-DB

9. The further contention that the impugned recommendation is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner who is also eligible to be appointed as a Judge was not considered by the Collegium is equally untenable and liable to be rejected in the light of the settled legal position that there is a basic difference between 'eligibility' and 'suitability'. As held in Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India (2009) 8 SCC 273, the appointment of a Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court requires 'consultation' and fitness of a person to be appointed is evaluated in the consultation process. Thus, it is clear that the evaluation of the worth and merit of a person is a matter entirely different from eligibility of a candidate for elevation. It was also made clear in the said decision that it is only in the cases of eligibility that the mechanism of judicial review can be invoked and not otherwise. Therefore, the contention of the appellant with regard to judicial review of the impugned recommendation of the Collegium is also liable to be rejected.

10. It may also be added that the names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium under the impugned recommendation have already been accepted and they have been appointed as the Judges of the Supreme Court by the President of India. Hence, Article 124(4) is attracted and therefore, on that ground also the order under appeal dismissing the writ petition warrants no interference.

11. The contention with regard to the binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India needs no consideration since prayer (C) and (D) in the writ petition have not been pressed by the appellant."

2. Review of the judgment dated 01.03.2017, has been sought by the appellant on the grounds that he was not allowed to argue his appeal covering each and every aspect; that none of the issues raised in the appeal have been adjudicated by the predecessor Bench and that none of the grounds or judgments relied upon for the dismissal of the appeal, had ever been brought to the notice of the appellant before passing the judgment under review.

3. Coming to the first submission made by the appellant that he was not allowed to argue his appeal, we had drawn his attention to the order dated 18.07.2016, wherein it was recorded that both, the appellant and the learned ASG appearing for the respondents were heard and judgment reserved. Further, liberty was granted to the appellant to file written submissions. When confronted with the aforesaid order, the appellant had fairly stated that he did not wish to press the said ground for seeking review of the judgment dated 01.03.2017.

4. As for the other pleas taken by the appellant for seeking re-hearing of the appeal, it may be stated that the scope of a review petition lies in a narrow compass. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC lays down the parameters of exercising review jurisdiction. The said provision makes it abundantly clear that the power of a review can be invoked on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the judgment was passed or on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

5. In the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. reported as AIR 1964 SC 1372, the scope of a review petition was delineated by the Supreme Court in the following words:-

6. In the case of Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi reported as (1997) 8 SCC 715, on a conspectus of the law laid down in Thungabhadra Industries (supra), Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported as (1979) 4 SCC 389 and Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported as (1995) 1 SCC 170 and, the Supreme Court had held as follows:-

8. In the case at hand, under the garb of a review application, the appellant is actually seeking a re-hearing of the appeal that was dismissed on merits on 01.03.2017, which is impermissible. The purpose of a review application is fairly limited and it cannot be used as a tool to reargue an appeal that has already been decided. We are therefore of the opinion that none of the circumstances contemplated under Order XLIVII Rule 1 CPC have arisen in the present case and nor are the grounds taken for seeking review of the judgment dated 01.03.2017, available to the appellant for interference, in exercise of review jurisdiction.