KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI & Ors.

Judgment

11 S.C.R. 25 KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 453 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) 135 OF 2008 A B AUGUST 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. AND DIPAK MISRA, J.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 137 - Review C jurisdiction .:... Exercise of -Scope - Review, when maintainable and when not maintainable - Principles summarised and discussed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL VII, r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Part VIII, Or. ~. D Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.137 - Review petition - Maintainability- Vide order dated 18.09.2003 in M.C. Mehta case, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to conduct inquiry with respect to execution of Taj Heritage Corridor E Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into registration of an FIR under provisions of /PC and the PC-Act against several persons including respondent no. 1 - CBI thereupon lodged another FIR under provisions of the PC Act only against respondent no. 1 with regard to alleged acquisition of disproportionate movable and F immovable assets by her and her relatives - Respondent no. 1 filed writ petition before Supreme Court against the second FIR - Supreme Court by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the second FIR holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding G lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against respondent no. 1 and that the CBI exceeded its juri~diction in lodging the same - Review petition challenging order dated 06.07.2012 passed in the Writ Petiljon - Held: 25 H ' 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 11 S.C.R. A Review petitioner herein was intervener in the earlier writ Petition - Contentions raised by him were dealt with and duly considered at length in the order dated 06. 07. 2012 and it was clarified that anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject matter of reference - Inasmuch as the very same B point was urged once again, the same was impermissible - In the writ petition, the Supreme Court had not gone into any other aspect relating to the claim of the CBI, intervener (review petitioner herein) or the stand of the respondent except the dimctions relating to Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was c the only /is - No material within the parameters of review jurisdiction to go into order dated 06.07.2012 passed in the Writ Petition - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL VII, r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Part VIII, Order XL - Penal Code, 1860 - s.120-B rlw ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 - 0 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d) and s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(e). Vide order dated 18.09.2003 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution E of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into the registration of an FIR being No. 0062003A0018 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections 42CI, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2) read F with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons including Respondent No.1. On the very same date, i.e., on 05.10.2003, the Superintendent of Police, CBl/ACP lodged another FIR G being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:, 1988 only against respondent no.1 with regard to the alleged acquisition of disproportionate movable and immovable assets by respondent no.1 and her relatives. H Aggrieved by the filing of the FIR being RC No. KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI 27 0062003A0019 of 2003, respondent no.1 preferred Writ A Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 before this Court, wherein the review petitioner herein also moved an application for intervention. This Court allowed the application for intervention and then by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the FIR being No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 B holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against respondent no.1 and that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the same. c The order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 was challenged in the present review petition. The question which arose for consideration before D this Court was whether the review petitioner had made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 and satisfied the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction. ' E Disposing of the review petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. Article 137 of the Constitution provides for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. Order XLVll, Rule 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, F 1908, provides for an application for review. Further, Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with the review. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVll Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, G mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise H 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 15] [34-D, E; 35-C; 45-C-D]

1.2. The following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: B C (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". o (8) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) E Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to G be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. [Para 16] [45-E-H; 46-A, B-G] F H Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. vs. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI 29 SCC 674; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. A Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167: 1980 (2) SCR 650; Co/. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs. Union of India and Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 562: 1981 SCR 168; Parsion Devi and Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 715: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 470; Lily Thomas and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 6 B SCC 224: 2000 (3) SCR 1081; Kera/a State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics and Hydropower Ltd. and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 651: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 517; Jain Studios Ltd. vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 409; Moran Mar Basse/ios Catholicos vs. c Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 520 and Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors. JT 2013 (8) SC 275: 2013 SCR 1045 - relied on. Mayawati vs. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 106: D