TRIBUNAL. REVIEW. Review application dismissible if no error apparent on record and delay in filing.

The respondents in OA No. 1961/2014 filed MA 212/2023 to condone a delay of 171 days in filing a Review Application (RA).

The RA itself was filed under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and sought to review an order passed in the original application.

The applicant in the RA reiterated contentions and judgments already relied upon in the original application, claiming the Tribunal had not considered them in the initial order.

Whether the delay of 171 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned.

Whether the grounds raised in the Review Application fall within the narrow scope of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC.

Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone delay in filing a review application beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The court primarily applied Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the scope of review, emphasizing that review lies in a narrow compass and is not an appeal.

It further referred to Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, concerning the Tribunal's power to review its decisions.

Key precedents cited include Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhury (Smt) (1995) 1 SCC 170, which held that a review court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate court.

Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004) SCC (L&S) 160, which reiterated that the scope of review is limited and not for re-hearing.

The decision in State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] provided guidelines for the Tribunal's review powers, stating they are akin to a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, and an erroneous decision cannot be corrected under the guise of an appeal.

Crucially, the court also relied on the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati's order in Union of India & Ors Vs. Chanchal Nag (WP(C) No.3034/2021, dated 27.03.2023), which held that the Tribunal has no power to condone delay in filing a review application beyond 30 days, as Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 is an express bar and the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to special statutes like the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found that the review applicant was attempting to re-argue the original matter afresh, akin to an appeal, which is explicitly impermissible under the narrow scope of review.

It noted that all grounds raised in the RA had already been considered in the original order.

Citing Meera Bhanja and Union of India vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, the court emphasized that review is not for re-appreciation of evidence or acting as an appellate authority.

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, which is a sine qua non for review, as established in precedents like State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta.

The Tribunal further referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati's ruling in Union of India & Ors Vs. Chanchal Nag, which explicitly stated that the Tribunal lacks the power to condone delays in filing review applications beyond the 30-day period stipulated in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987, as the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is a special law to which the general Limitation Act does not apply.

The Madras High Court's order in W.P. No. 16952/2025, dated 03.06.2025, further reinforced this position.

Given the 171-day delay, the Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to condone it.

Consequently, the Review Application (RA) was also dismissed.

The court held that it lacks the power to condone the significant delay in filing the review application, and even if it did, the grounds raised in the RA did not fall within the permissible scope of review, as they amounted to re-arguing the original case rather than pointing out an error apparent on the face of the record.