This review application has been filed against the order, dated 14.1.2000, made in W.P.No.9305 of 1996. The review application has been filed by the applicants herein, who were respondents 1,3 and 4 in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition had been filed by one Varadaraju, who is the first respondent in the present review application, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Letter No. Me.Po./Ka/Me.A.Mi.Thi/Ni.Ye/Va.3/Ko.Appeal/No.15/96, dated 11.3.1996, of the fourth respondent therein, refusing to provide the petitioner a job under the respondent Electricity Board for having been displaced from the lands under their occupation, as per the settlement, dated 7.12.1982.
3. The petitioner in the writ petition had further stated that a settlement, dated 7.12.1982, had been entered into before the District Collector, Salem, according to which one person in each joint/separate family would be given a job, if the persons concerned had been issued with a `B memo and if the land revenue had been remitted during the fasli 1389. According to the settlement, a list of 265 members, whose lands had been acquired for being utilized by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, had been approved. Since the petitioner was eligible for being provided with the job, in accordance with the settlement, dated 7.12.1982, he had approached the respondents in the writ petition. However, by the impugned proceedings, dated 11.3.1996, his request had been rejected on the ground that the petitioners brother, namely, V.Kesavan, had already been given employment under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings, dated 11.3.1996.
4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order, dated 14.1.2000, had quashed the impugned order, dated 11.3.1996, passed by the fourth respondent and had directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the claim of the petitioner and to provide him a suitable employment, if he otherwise satisfies the other conditions necessary for such employment.
5. No appeal had been filed against the said order, dated 14.1.2000, made in W.P.No.9305 of 1996. However, respondents 1,3 and 4 in the writ petition had filed the present review application stating that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.1.2000, suffers from a mistake of fact. It has been further stated that the learned Judge had failed to note that one V.Kesavan, a brother of the petitioner had already been provided with job assistance by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on 22.10.1983, as per the settlement, dated 7.12.1982. The said fact had been clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the said writ petition. Since, only one member of the family is entitled for job assistance, in accordance with the settlement, dated 7.12.1982, the petitioner in the writ petition, who is the first respondent in the present review application, is not eligible for being given employment under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge, dated 14.1.2000, in W.P.No.9305 of 1996, need not be reviewed by this Court, since the learned Judge, who had passed the said order, had taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case before passing the said order.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the writ petition and the first respondent in the present review application, namely, Varadaraju, is entitled to job assistance, by being provided with employment, under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in accordance with the settlement, dated 7.12.1982, as a nominee of his grand father, namely, Thiruvengi Gounder. Even though the first respondents brother, V.Kesavan, had already been given employment, it does not disentitle the first respondent from being employed, as a nominee of their grand father. Since, 1/4th share had been taken from four separate families, who were in possession of the lands, four members of the family were entitled to be employed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The first respondents brother, V.Kesavan, had been provided with employment based on the fact that the lands in the possession of his father, Vasudevan, had been taken over. However, for the taking over of the 1/4th share of the lands, in Block No.56/5, in Thottilpatty Village, measuring 3.46 acres, from the possession of Thiruvengi Gounder, no one had been provided with employment.
7. Thiruvengi Gounder had also 1/4th share in the five acres under his possession, in Block No.57, in the same village. According to the settlement, dated 7.12.1982, 265 members had been assured of employment, including the first respondents grand father and his three sons. Since, the first respondents grand father, Thiruvengi Gounder, had died, his wife Tmt.Thandayee, had nominated the first respondent, as her nominee for being provided with job assistance. Further, in the memo, dated 28.3.1996, it has been specified that even an unrelated person can be provided with employment, if he is a nominee of a person from whom the lands had been taken.
8. It has also been stated that similarly placed persons, like that of the petitioner, have been provided with employment by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The learned Judge, who had passed the order, dated 14.1.2000, in W.P.No.9305 of 1996, had taken into consideration all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents therein and he had passed the said order directing the said respondents to consider the claim of the first respondent and to provide him with suitable employment, if he was otherwise qualified for such employment. In such circumstances, the review application is not maintainable.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the applicants in the review application, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants in the review application have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to review the order passed by this Court, on 14.1.2000, in W.P.No.9305 of 1996.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicants had not filed an appeal against the said order, dated 14.1.2000 and therefore, it had become final. Since the order passed by this Court, on 14.1.2000, had not been implemented, as directed by this Court a contempt petition, in Contempt Petition No.332 of 2001, had been filed by, Varadaraju, the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the writ petition have preferred the present review application after a lapse of nearly eighteen months from the date of the passing of the final order in the writ petition.
11. Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in the present review application that a factual mistake had been made, at the time of the passing of the final order in the writ petition, cannot be accepted. It is clear that the respondents in the writ petition had stated in the counter affidavit filed by them that V.Kesavan, brother of V.Varadaraju, had already been given employment and therefore, another person belonging to the same family cannot be considered for being provided with job assistance. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the learned Judge, who had passed the order, dated 14.1.2000, in W.P.No.9305 of 1996, had not considered the said fact. If the respondents in the writ petition were aggrieved by the said order, dated 14.1.2000, it was open to them to have challenged the same by way of an appeal, in the manner known to law. Having chosen not to do so, it is not open to them to challenge the said order, indirectly, by filing a review application.
12. It is well settled in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). Hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, in the present review application, cannot be countenanced. In such view of the matter, the review application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 09-10-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh To The District Collector, Salem District.
Review Application No.76 of 2001 09-10-2009