Dismissed

Sanjeev Jain v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation

NGT21 Aug 2024Review Application No. 8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal recalled a default order dismissing a review application to hear the matter. It rejected arguments that a transformer could not be established at the site and dismissed the review application due to lack of apparent error on the record and irrelevance of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed; the original order of the Tribunal stood affirmed.

Sanjeev Jain vs East Delhi Municipal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 71/2024

¶5

¶6

Review Application No. 8/2024

¶7

Sanjeev Jain Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

East Delhi Municipal Corporation Respondent

¶10

Date of hearing: 21.08.2024

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Sanjeev Jain, Applicant in Person

¶13

ORDER

¶14

M.A No. 71/2024 : Heard applicant in person. He stated that due to his mistake he could not appear on 05.07.2024 and sought adjournment and then failed to notice next date i.e. 12.07.2024 and on that day also he could not appear He requested that order dated 12.07.2024 dismissing the Review Application in default be recalled.

¶15

Considering facts and circumstances of the case and also request of the applicant who is present in person, in the interest of justice, we recall order dated 12.07.2024 and restore Review Application No. 8/2024.

¶16

Review Application No. 8/2024 : Heard applicant in person. He contended that he has given enough evidence to prove his case, particularly, to show that the transformer at the site in question could not

¶17

¶18

have been established but those documents have not been examined by the Tribunal.

¶19

He drew our attention to annexure 3 to Review Application which he claims to be a document, he has obtained from website of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the said document was not part of record of the Original Application. In any case, even annexure three, we have gone through. The applicant relied on Sr. No. 931 and 932 which records name of the zone, ward no., name and location of part and other details as under:-

¶21

“

¶22

931	Shah. South	12-E	T.B Ho Park Mayur Vinar PktIV	spital No.-1 Ph-I	0.06	28.61396 7	77.29 0287	Sh. Shiv Kum ar	9811 1155 41	Sh. Pank aj	8076 2766 86
932	Shah. South	12-E	T.B Ho Park Mayur Vihar PktIV	spital No.-1 Ph-I	0.275	28.6137	77.29 0193	Sh. Shiv Kum ar	9811 1155 41	Sh. Pank aj	8076 2766 86 ”

¶23

The location of Annexure -3 at Sr. No. 931 and 932 is in the area of Mayur Vihar, though the dispute relates to the alleged park in village Chawk, Patparganj at East Delhi and not Mayur Vihar. Therefore, above document has no relevance to the issue. Even otherwise, despite repeated query, the applicant did not point out any part of the judgment to demonstrate that it has contained any contradiction or error apparent error in warranting interference.

¶24

Recently, in Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620/2023, Civil Appeal

¶25

No. 1661/2020, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) &

¶26

Another and other connected matters, decided on 31.10.2023, Supreme

¶27

¶28

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:

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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 its power of review.

¶32

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”.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶38

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.

¶39

We accordingly find no merit in this Review Application.

¶40

Dismissed.

¶41

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶42

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶43

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶44

August 21, 2024 Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 71/2024 In Review Application No. 8/2024 AB

¶45

Sanjeev Jain v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Jain v. East Delhi 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

Tushar Goswami vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

T.M.Umashankar vs Union of India

Akula Satish vs State of Telangana

Mrs. Linet Nunes W/O Simon Lobo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Sarvan Kumar vs State of Telangana

Rasulpur Dana Welfare Society vs Wbpcb

Rasulpur Dana Welfare Society vs Wbpcb

Shiv Kumar Arora vs

Sarita Singh vs

Sarita Singh vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 71/2024 in Review Application No. 8/2024 of Sanjeev Jain vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Vikrant Tongad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Vikrant Tongad vs State of Uttar Pradesh