IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA REVIEW PETITION NO.465 OF 2018 & REVIEW PETITION NOS.98-99 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.29723 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, A company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered office at K.R.Circle, Bengaluru – 560 009, Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Chief Engineer (Electricity), Bangalore Rural Area Zone, No.1-4, 5th Floor, Rajajinagar IT Park, Bengaluru – 560 044.
3. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited., The Chief Engineer (Electricity) (Planning and Coordination) Cavery Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Bengaluru – 560 009., Represented herein by the Chief Engineer, Electrical.
...Petitioners (By Sri. Sriranga S., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha (III Floor), Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Telecom Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, No.23, 1st Floor, Nehru Nagar Main Road, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru – 560 020, Represented herein by its President Sri G. Babu S/o. R. Gopalchar.
…Respondents (By Sri D.R. Anandeeswar, HCGP for R-1 Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagouda, Adv. for R-2) These Review Petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying this Hon’ble Court to review the order dated 19.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.29723/2017 and W.P.Nos.31277-31278/2018 (GM-KEB), on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
These Review Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the review petitions.
2. These review petitions are filed because of the common order dated 19.07.2018 made in W.P.Nos.29723/2017 and 31277-31278/2018.
3. The said writ petitions are filed against the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3 confirming the earlier revised intimation letters dated 10.06.2015 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-A and B.
4. This Court considering the rival contentions of both the parties has come to conclusion that respondent No.3 as per Annexures-C, D and E dated 03.09.2012, 30.03.2013 and 30.03.2013 had sanctioned power separately in three different locations viz., the first layout to an extent of 5515 KVA (4699KW) to an extent of 91 acres 10 guntas, second layout to an extent of 5373 KWS (6322 KVA) to an extent of 72 acres 27 guntas and third layout to an extent of 5694 KWS (6699 KVA) to an extent of 82 acres 4 guntas in favour of the petitioner-Society. Accordingly, the writ petitions came to be allowed and the impugned order made therein was quashed directing the respondent No.3 to restore the power to the petitioner’s layouts in terms of the approval letters dated 03.09.2012, 30.03.2013 and 30.03.2013 as per Annexures C, D and E respectively, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply the conditions imposed in the said approval letters and in accordance with law within a period of three months. Hence, the present review petitions are filed.
5. Sri Sriranga S., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there were discrepancies in Annexures-C, D and E approval of power supply to the petitioners layout and the same was discovered only on 17.11.2018 as per Annexure-B-statement of calculations to the present review petitions i.e., subsequent to the order passed by this Court. Further he contended that after taking into consideration annexures, more than 7,500 KVA has been sanctioned for layout Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, there is error on the face of the record to review the order passed by this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the review petition.
6. Per contra Sri D.R. Anandeeswar, HCGP for respondent No.1 sought to justify the order passed by this Court. Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagowdar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 while justifying the impugned order passed by this Court and contended that the learned counsel for the review petitioners, in the writ petitions who sought to justify the impugned action of the respondent No.3 has not disputed the sanction letters as per Annexures-C, D and E and even statement of objections was not filed. He further contended that while arguing the writ petitions, the review petitioners have not disputed the same before this Court. Now after thought, they filed statement of calculations subsequent to the order passed by this Court on 19.07.2018. Therefore, sought to dismiss the present review petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the order challenged before this Court in W.P. N.29723/2017 & connected matters is the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3 confirming the earlier revised intimation letter dated 10.06.2015 issued by respondent No.3. This Court after hearing the parties at length and based on the very sanctioning letters/approval letters which were issued separately on 03.09.2012, 13.12.2011 and 30.03.2013 has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Ultimately, the power sanction letters issued by respondent No.3 not modified by the authorities. Except Annexure-B calculations filed on 17.11.2018 i.e., subsequent to order passed by this Court, no grounds are made out to review the impugned order. If any discrepancies are discovered after the disposal of the present writ petition on merits, cannot be a ground to review the order passed by this Court dated 19.07.2018.
8. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re-agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings.
9. Admittedly in the present case though the counsel for review petitioner was represented, this Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order based on Annexures C, D and E. Now, after disposal of the writ petitions, merely they have discovered the discrepancies in the sanction letter is not a ground to review the impugned order. Therefore is liable to be rejected.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Kamlesh Varma Vs. Mayawati & Others reported in (2013) SC 3301 has held at paras 15 and 16 as under:
“15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, 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 that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles:
16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(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.
16.1 The words ‘any other sufficient reason’ has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, [AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., [(1955) 1 SCR 520], to mean ‘a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule’. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., [JT 2013 (8) SC 275].
(B) 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) 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 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.”
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Review petitioners have not made out any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in exercise of power under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Review Petitions are dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-