BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Review Application No.1 of 2013 (SZ) in Appeal No. 58 of 2012 (SZ) In the matter of: M/s. Vadivel Knit Process Rep. by its Proprietor K. Jayaprakash S.F. No. 3/4, 5, 6 and 7, Nallur Village Kasipalayam Vijayapuram Post Tirupur- 641 605.. Review Applicant/Appellant AND 1. The Chaiman Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Krishna Vilas No. 51, Gangadheeswarar Koil Street Purasawalkam Chennai- 600 084 2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 76/100, Mount Salai Guindy Chennai- 600 032 3. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 2 nd Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Kumaran Road Tirupur- 641601 4. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association Rep. by its President, A.P. Kandasamy Athipalayam Post K. Paramathi (via) Karur- 639 111.. Respondents/Respondents Counsel appearing:
Applicant/Appellant.. M/s. K. Raja, N. Suresh and K. Murugan, Advocates Respondents Present:.. Shrimathi Rita Chandrasekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Shri Santhanagopalan, Senior Advocate for Shri M. Sidhardhan, Advocate for respondent No. 4 ORDER 1. Hon ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member 2. Hon ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member Dated, 17 th November, 2014 (Hon ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) This application has been filed by the appellant to review the judgment made on 16.05.2013 in Appeal No. 58 of 2012 (SZ), whereby the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 22.12.2012 of the 1 st respondent, Appellate Authority of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control in Appeal Nos. 133 and 134 of 2009. 2. The Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on either side. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that applicant/appellant did not seek for shifting of his unit, whereas it sought for consent to establish his unit at S.F. No. 3/ 4, 5, 6 and 7of Nallur village of Tirupur Taluk and District without looking into
the counter filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) in and by which it was admitted that the applicant/appellant sought for shifting his existing unit from the location at S.F. No. 56, Mudalipalayam village, Tirupur Taluk and District to S.F. No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Nallur village in Tirupur Taluk and District. The other ground on which the appeal was dismissed was that the Review Applicant was having a valid consent upto 31.03.1999 of the TNPCB and thereafter, there are no documents indicating whether the Review Applicant applied for renewal of consent. But, the Tribunal has not looked into the document filed by the appellant which divulged that the appellant was an existing unit and was paying consent fee every year until the application for shifting the unit was made in the year 2009. If the unit of the appellant was not an existing unit, the same would have been rejected. Thus, there was a manifest error in the order passed on 16.05.2013 in Appeal No. 58 of 2012 (SZ) and that the appellant sought for permission to shift his unit from the earlier location to a new location was not taken into consideration and hence the judgment has to be to reviewed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents/tnpcb would reply that there was a valid consent upto 31.03.1999 and thereafter, no consent was granted though the consent fee was paid till the application was made in the year 2009.
4. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Santhanagopalan for the 4 th respondent would submit tht the review application is not maintainable since no ground is shown by the applicant/appellant. The grounds set out in the application are nothing more than the repetition of the old and overruled arguments dealt with in specific detail in the final orders passed in the appeal by the Tribunal. The applicant/appellant cannot seek to rehear the appeal. If really aggrieved, he should have appealed against the judgment. The applicant/appellant does not refer to any material error or manifest illegality on the face of the error resulting in miscarriage of justice and hence, the application has got to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal paid its considerations on the submissions made and is of the considered opinion that the review application has got to be dismissed since the applicant/appellant has not made out any case for review. The grounds on which the judgment made in Appeal No. 58 of 2012 (SZ) are sought to be reviewed by the applicant/appellant is that the applicant/appellant sought for only permission for shifting to his unit in the new place from the old one which is evident from the counter filed by the TNPCB and also the unit of the applicant/appellant was an existing unit since it has a valid consent upto 31.03.1999 and has been paying the consent fee till the application was made in the year 2009.
6. Speaking on the procedure and powers of the Tribunal in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, section 19 (4) of the Act reads as follows: (4) The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- *** *** (f) reviewing its decision: From the very reading of the above, it is clear that the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for reviewing its decisions. Three grounds on which a review can be entertained are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC are (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence, (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of record and (3) for any other sufficient reasons. 7. No review application can be entertained except on any one of the above specified grounds. It is an extra-ordinary remedy. It is well settled position of law that the appreciation of evidence on records is fully within the domain of the appellate court and cannot be permitted to be adduced in
the review application and if allowed, it would be a rehearing of the appeal. The Hon ble Apex Court in (1997) 8 SCC 715 in the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumtri Devi and others has held as follows: 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the fact of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that accordingly, the order in question is reviewed and the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were provided and as such the case was covered by Article 182 and not Article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the
impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in a Civil Revision dated 25.04.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which was not of such a nature, which had to be detected by a long-drawn process of reasons and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment-debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open them to seek a review of the order of Gupta, J. on the grounds detailed in the review petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and we accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.1997. 8. Applying the above decision in the instant case, it can be well said that the applicant/appellant cannot maintain the review application since he has sought for the review on the same grounds in respect of which arguments were advanced in full, considered in detail in paragraphs 14 to 17 and answered to arrive at the decision. Thus, the applicant/appellant has not made out any ground warranting review of the judgment made in
Appeal No. 58 of 2012 (SZ) dated 16 th May, 2013. Hence, the review application is dismissed. No cost. (Justice M. Chockalingam) Judicial Member Chennai, (Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran) Expert Member Dated, 17 th November, 2014