Dismissed

Gourav Taneja v. Municipal Corporation

NGT4 Nov 2024Review Application No. 17/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Review Application challenging an order that dismissed the Original Application, noting that the issue is already pending in another matter. The Tribunal held that the order does not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review.

What did the court decide?

Review Application dismissed; liberty granted to applicant to make submission in the pending matter.

Gourav Taneja vs Municipal Corporation — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 13

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Review Application No. 17/2024 In Original Application No. 823/2024 (I.A. No. 486/2024) Gourav Taneja Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Municipal Corporation of & Ors.

¶7

Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 04.11.2024

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Ali Qambar Zaidi and Mr. Atul Kr. Srivassav, Advocate for Applicant.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This is a Review Application seeking review of Tribunal’s order dated

¶13

31.07.2024 passed in OA 823/2024. Order reads as under:-

¶14

“1. Learned counsel for applicant at the outset stated that the issue raised in this matter is already under consideration before this Tribunal in Original Application No. 793/2022, Council of Engineers v. State of Punjab.

¶15

2. We do not find that there should be multiplication of matter when an issue is already in consideration before Tribunal.

¶16

3. Giving liberty to applicant to make its submission in pending matter by moving appropriate application, we dispose of this Original Application.”

¶17

It is evident that order was passed considering statement made by

¶18

learned counsel for applicant appearing on that date before Tribunal.

¶19

¶20

It is not the case of the review applicant that statement was made by learned counsel incorrectly.

¶21

In Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620/2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661/2020, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Another and other connected matters, decided on 31.10.2023, Supreme Court has observed that the parties are not entitled to seek a review of judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. Applying principles of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is said that a review of judgment is open inter-alia if there is a mistake or 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 record. Supreme Court has culled down following propositions relevant for review of the judgment:

¶22

i. A judgment is open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶23

ii. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶24

iii. 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 record justifying the court to exercise 4 its power of review.

¶25

iv. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".

¶26

v. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

¶27

vi. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶28

vii. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶29

viii. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. iv. V. 3 vi. vii. 4 viii.”

¶30

¶31

That being so, we do not find that any ground for review is made out.

¶32

Review Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶34

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶35

November 04, 2024 Review Application No. 17/2024 In Original Application No. 823/2024 (I.A. No. 486/2024) AB

¶36

Gourav Taneja v. Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourav Taneja v. Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) vs Moef

Arun Kumar Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Nand Lal vs Dharmendra Tomar and Kapil Pandey

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated 02.10.2022 Titled Over 6000 Trees Illegally Cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Rese Rve Says Fsi Report vs

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

Salman Miya vs

Om Prakash vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 66/2024 in Original Application No. 805/2022 of S Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab through Its Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "Sonbhadra : File Me Simta Uppcb Ka Vayu Pradushan Niyantran Jaane Pura Mamla" Appearing in Newstrack.Com Dated 24.03.2024 vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 104/2024 in Original Application No. 142/2022 of Jayant Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 102/2024 in Original Application No. 142/2022 of Jayant Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change