The High Court · 2025

GRN Constructions Private Limited, Admin. Office. Plot No. 23, Door No. 2- 48/TN/31/3 & 4, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500032 (T.S) Rep by its [Vanaging Director Sri G. Poornachandra Rao. ...PETITIONER AND

1. N. Balratn Naik S/o Hunya Chairman and Managing Director, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Regd. Office at. Kothagudem Dist. Telangana 5071 01 .

2. John Anand S/o Maria Susai The General [\Ianager, Singereni Collieries Companv Ltd., Yellendu Area, BhadradriKothagudem District,

3. V.Srinivasa Rao S/o Kondaiah, The Project officer, KAOC- SCCL, Yellendu Area, Bh;rdradriKothagudem District, Telangana 507 101 ...CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners in lA No: 1 of 2O2,5 in W.P. No; 15778 of 2O24 and for the Respondents in CC No: 216O of 2024 in W.P.No. 157',tB ot 2024 Counsel for the, Respondents in lA No: 1 ot 2l2li in W.P. No: 1 5778 of 2O24 and for Petitioner in CC No: 2160 of 2024 in W.P.No. 157i'8 of 2024 : Sri E. Madanmohan Rao, representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy (Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.) : Sri A. Venkatesh representing Sri Lakshmikant Reddy Desai The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 4 SNJ THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Review I.A.No.1 of 2025 W.P.No.15778 of 2O24 c.c.2l60 0F 2024 W.P.No.15778 of 2O24 Review I.A.No.1 of 2O25 W.P.No.15778 of 2O24 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners on record and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Lakshmikant Reddy Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on record. The oresent review has been filed seekino review of the order of this Court dated 22.O8.2O24 passed in W.P.No.15778 of 2024. ,,* Effi# 5 SNJ c.c.2160 0F 2024 W.P. .L5778 of 2024 Heard sri A.venkatesh, learned senior designated counsel representing sri Lakshmikant Reddy Desai, learnr:d counsel appearing oT beharf of the petitioner on record and sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned senior desigrrated counsel representing sri p.sri Harsha Reddy, learne:d standing counsel appearing on behalf of the resporrdents,/contem nors on record. Tha nfernnt .a<a i filerl trr nrr Resoondents /Contemnors fo Qrden; of this Court dated 22.O8.2024 passed in W.P.No.L5778 of 2024. PERUSED THE RECORD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : lr_Ihe learned senior desiqnated counsel aooearinq on behalf of the Review Petitioners and the contemnors in 6 silJ the contempt case mainly puts-forth the following submissions : i) The orders of this Court, dated 22.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.15778 of 2024 needs to be reviewed since this Court did not consider the St4te Vigilance Report, dated

18.03.2023 while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. ii) The Writ Petition No.15778 of 2O24 was disposed of at the admission stage without giving an opportunity of filing counter to the respondents. iii) Para No.5 of the State Vigilance Report, dated

18.03.2023 had not been considered since the same had not been brought to the notice of this Court on one hand, the Court observed that this Court was not going into the merits of the rival contentions of both the Iearned counsel on record. On the other hand, this Court directed the respondents to prepare the final bill considering the value of the saved quantity of diesel in terms of the Diesel bonus Statement dt.15/19.03.2O24 and supply a copy of j,1; .,. .,:..,,'-o$.,:ori '1i,llt',i.8#&.il'i$ i' 7 5NJ the same to the petitioner before seeking their signature on the same. Enred on the aforesaid srbmissi.irs and placino relianee on the aforesaid ludoments of the Apex court the lc.arnell senior Desiqnate counset appearing on behatf of the Re'view Petitioners contends that the Review petition needs.l:o be allowed as prayed for and the contemot needs to be cliosed.

3. Th" learned cornsel aooea.inq on behalf of the Eyiry oetitioners in the review petition and the contemnors in the contempt case placed reliance on the followirrq judqments: (A) Th" Jrdo-.nt in "p"r., K.rr.o." ,. S."iti M"d"n Kan€agla" reoorted in (2019) 2o suoreme court cases 753, in part!-cul:rr, the relevant portion of para No.15.1 is extracted hereunder: "(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sulficient reason which is wide enough to include a mi:;conception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.,, r 8 5Nl (B) In the case of "Government of NCT of Delhi t, throuoh its Secretarv, Land and Buildinq Deoartment and another v. K,L. Rathi Steels Limited and others" reported in (2O24) 7 Supreme Court Cases 315, in oarticular, at para Nos. 42 to 46, it is observed as under : "42. Order 47 does not end with the circumstances as Section 114 CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face'of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason. 43. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to show that such evidence (a) was actually available on the date the court made the order/decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence, it could not be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/decree, (c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of its absence, a miscarriage of justice has b6en caused in the sense that had it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decision would have been otherwise.

44. R'egarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the court that the mistake or error committed by it is . . -'-!i&:D*.i..ii .",:iiffilffi -f l i l i I I I I I I I I i 9 s,:lf-evident and such mistake or error can be polnted out without any long-drawn process of reasoning; and, if such rnistake or error is not corrected and is permitted to stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit_in-all d,:finition of "mistake or error apparent on the face of the rr:cord" and it has been considered prudent by the courts to dr-'termine whether any mistake or error does exist considering tf,e facts of each individual case coming before it.

45. With regard to (iii) (supra), we can do no better than r€fer to the traditional view in Chhajju Ram, a decision of a Br:nch of seven Law Lords of the ludicial Committee of the privy Council. It was held there that the words',any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds at least arralogous to those specified immediately previously,,, meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). Notabty, Chhajju Ram has been consistently followed by this Court in a number of decisions starting with Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos V. Mar poulose Athanasius.

46. There are recent decisions of this Court which have vi()wed "mistake" as an independent ground to seek a review. Whether or not such decision express the correct view need not detain us since the review here is basically prayed in view of the su lsequent event. "

4.7 he learn d senior 4esiq nated counsel a Doea ri qon 'o t in r w e h r 10 sfl,, following submissions : a) There is a clear disobedience of the orders of this court, dated 22.0,8.2024 passed in w.P.No.15778 of 2024. b) There is no error apparent cin the face of the record The learned senior desiqnated counsel apDearinq on

5. be reviewed is extracted hereunder a) From the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicanU (b) Such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicanti at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and ':,iiil-l:r# I 71- sil,j (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason." the piesent Review petition. r.l "56 - It follows, therefore, that the power of rr:view can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. such powers can be e.xercised within the limits of the statute dealing w'ith the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. L2 sflJ record that warrants review of the order dated O7.O4.2O15 passed in W.P.No.3O937 of ?O15.

7. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 198O (2) SCC 167, dated 21.12.1979 in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi observed at para No.8 as under : Para 8 : It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. In the present case, this Court opines that no circumstances of a substantial and compelling character exist that warrant interference by this Court for oassinq of orders in favour of the review petitioners.

8. The boundary within which the power of review under Order 47 Rute 1 of CPC 19O8 has to be exercised has been demarcated bv the Hon'ble Suoreme Court in its \\ ::.., - :i-.i. l{ I 13 5X.l underi "5.1. whire considering the aforesaid issue two de:cisions of this court on order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 11.4 Code of civil procedure. In the case of perry Kansagra (supra) this court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application Under order 47 Rule 1 re,ad with Section 114 code of civil procedure, the Review ccurt does not sit in appear over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in lavv. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be ex'srcised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further ob:;erved that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has; been finally decided. After considerinq catena of Sgtnmed uoon as under D t4 SN.J (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. (ia) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. , 15 5N,'

9. 'Ihe' Aoex -Iudo ent da 1a_oa .2022 paraglraDh No. 26, observed as under: "26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it l-ras been consistently held by this court in several judicial pronouncements that the court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a nristake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a nratter. A judgment may also be open to review when glndertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against alt error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous dr:cision can be corrected by the superior Court; however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be cc'rrected by exercising review jurisdiction. yet another cit-cumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for ) L6 SN,J reviewing a judgment has been described as'tfor any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule".

10. It would be apt to discuss the jurisdiction of this Court to review its own judgment. After examining a catena of Supreme Court Judgments (1) Sasi D through LRS v Aravindakshan Nair and Others reported in (2Ot7) 4 SCC, dated O3.O3.2OL7, para Nos. 6 to 9; (2) Haridas Das v Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, dated 2L.O3.2OO6 paras 15 to 18; (3) Parsion Devi v Sumitri Devi reported in t997 (8) SCC 7t5t dated L4.tO.t997, para Nos. 7 to 1O; (4) Aribam Tuleshwar Sirarma v Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, dated 25.01.1979 para No. 3 the principles that emerge from a perusal of the land-mark Supreme Court Judgments on the issue of review, are enlisted below: A) The power to review is inherent in the High Court and the High Court can review its own order/judgment passed in a writ petition. 7 17 5N,' B) This power of review is a rimited power and wourd be 3overned by the principles of Section 151 read with order .(LVIi Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure. l:) Firstly, a Court can review its own judgment ruhen there is discovery of new and important rnatter or evidence that,was in spite of exercise of due diligence not within the knowtedge or courd not tle produced due to cogent reasons by the party s;eeking a review. Secondly, the court may review its order or judgment on account of some mistake or €rror apparent on the face of the record. Thirdty, a residuary clause in Rure 1 of order xLvrr provides fr)r o review for any other sufficient reason'. rt is to be noted that the Apex court on severar occasions has held that the third condition "for any other sufficient reason" has to be read within the four cr)rners of the first two conditions. D) An error which is not serf-evident and has to be dt-'tected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record. E) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be: allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". There is a sharp di:;tinction between an erroneous decision that can be only 18 5N,' appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review.

11. The Apex Court in its very recent Ju4gment reported in 2O24 (2) SCC Paqe 362 in between "Saniav Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another" dated

31.1O.2O23 reiterated, the same view of the Apex Court as held in its various Judgments. L2. In the case of "Arun Dev Upadhyava v. Inteqrated Sales Service Ltd,," reported in SCC Daqe 21, in particular at oara 35, it is observed as under: "35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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."

13. This Court opines that as per the view of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and.extracted above, a Court can revaew its own Judgment when there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence that ,:E 19 SN,' was in spite of exercise of due diligence not within the knowledge or courd not be produced due to cogent reasorits by a party seeking a review. Iearne,d senior designated codnsel appearinq on behalf of th-e rgview petitioners to the effect that this court vide its qrde-r- dated 22.o8.2024 Dassed in w.p.No.1577g of zo2+ al-.Efa No.11 had at one staqe observed that this court witholrt qoinq into the merits of the rival contentions rrut- never,lheless in the very same paragraph directed the qreparation of final bill by considerinq the value of the saved- quantity of dieset in terms of the Diesel bonus statement, dated 15 r 9.o3.2o24 amounts to an order passed on merits is not a sustainable ptea and the same is accordinolv rejected. rn fact, this court vide its order, d-ated.- 22.o8.2o24 passed in w.p.No.15778 of 2o24 d!-recllgd the resoondent Nos.1 to 3 to reconsider the rggg-s!: of the petitioner, in accgrdance to raw, to prepare 20 sN,, order. dated 19.O4.2O24 passed in W.P.No.1O292 of 2O24 which had been passed dulv recordinq the consent of both the learned counsel on record in the said order.

15. This Court opines that Review is permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of record and review ties only on the grounds mentioned in order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The Review petitioner could not satisfy the Court on the point that the grounds mentioned in order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC had been met with in the present Review and hence the present order under Review dated t8.O7.2023 passed in W.P.No.29486 of 2O18 does not fail under the parameters of review. I I i l l I I i 2T SN,J

17. accordi nqly dismissed.

18. a) Ther submissions made by the tearned counser appearing on beharf of the review petitioners and the contemrnors in the contempt case and the submissions of the learned senior designated counset appearing on behalf 'f the writ petitioner/respondent in the review petition. r I -:-_- 22 SN,' b) This Court is of the firm opinion that given the limited scope of review, and in the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos. 2 to 16 of the present Judgment and duly considering the observations in the various Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), and again enlisted below, the present review is devoid of merits. (a) 2O14 IJ (SC) (11) 88, dated 19.1r,.2OL4. (b) (2OO3) 9 scc 48O, dated 27.O3.2oO3 (c) 2o0o (6) ScC 224, dated O5.O4.2OOO (d) 1980 (2) sCC L67, dated 2L.!2.1979 (e) (2023) SCC Online SC 185, dated 24.02.2023 (f) 2022 Live Law (SC) 685, dated 18.08.2022 (g) 2o2a (2) scc 362 The oreferred bv the dents in the \ )' , ...:rl.i.:.i.i;f . r.l-rt 23 sN,l no order as to costs. 14iscellaneous petitions pending, if an4 -sh1 ll stand closed. Sd/. N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Mrs J (For Her Lordship kind perusat Surepalli Nanda ) To, Affairs, New Delhi

1. The Und-'r Secretary, Union of rndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company 2' The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the ^ slate of 1'elangana, High court Buirdings at Hyderabad. 3. 11 LR Copies 4- one cc to sri Lakshmikanth Reddy DesaiAdvocate topucl 5' one CC tc Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy (Standing couns"rfor Singareni Collieries Co Ltd) [oPUCj 6. Two CD Oopies N, I I I I i I I t /! ,l 1 tlE S * 1 B Hr$ 2U6 * HIGH COURT DATED: 06/1 112025 COMMON ORDER lA NO: 1 0F 2025 tNt WP NO: 15778 OF 2024 AhID CC N O: 2160 OF 2024 ln{ W.P.No. 15778 OF 2024 DISMISSIhIG THE lA NO: 1 OF 2025 IN WP NO: 1:5778 OF 2024 AND CLOSING THE CC NO: 2160 OF 2024 IN W.P.No. 1t 778 OF 2024 I q.