National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.19(4)(f) – National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 – r.22(2) – Application for review – Original applicant claimed that the project proponent had raised construction in violation of the Environmental Clearance granted for the project and also in violation of the various municipal laws – NGT directed the project proponent to pay environment compensation cost – Appeal against the order – Meanwhile, Project Proponent filed a review application against the order of the NGT, which was decided by a different Bench – Original applicant contended that certain arguments raised by him were not heard by the original Bench – Held: A review petition should not be heard by any other Bench unless it is impossible or totally impracticable for earlier Bench to hear the matter – If a party urges that some of the contentions urged by it were not taken into consideration then it filed a review application, then the application should be heard by the same Bench which had originally heard the matter – According to sub-rule(2) the matter should ordinarily be heard at the same place of sitting where it was originally decided – However, this is not a mandatory direction because sub-rule(2) itself contemplates that the matter shall ordinarily be heard at the same place – In tribunals like NGT where members may be transferred from one Bench to another, these issues could be resolved by resorting to the latest technology and if necessary the arguments in such cases can be heard by video conferencing – Thus, the normal rule is that the same Bench should hear the review application and it should not be disturbed – Besides, Project Proponent had violated law with impunity by raising constructions, and by manipulating the officials and authorities – Supreme Court in number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages and this is followed as a general law – However, in the instant case, project proponent directed to pay damages of Rs.100 crores or 10% of the Project – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLVII.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A review petition should normally be heard by the same Bench which originally decided the matter. A review petition should not be heard by any other Bench unless it is impossible or totally impracticable for the earlier Bench to hear the matter. In a review petition, like in the present case, where the review petitioner contends that certain arguments raised by him have not been considered then it is only the judges who originally heard the matter who can decide whether such point was urged or not. [Para 33] [1025-C-D]
2. It is well known that parties raise various contentions in their pleadings or in their evidence. On many occasions when arguments are heard many of the pleas are not urged. Any judicial authority including the NGT which is presided over by a judicial member who may be a retired judge of this Court or of a High Court is expected to deal with all contentions raised before it. There is a presumption that judicial authorities must have dealt with all the contentions raised before them. If a party urges that some of the contentions urged by it have not been taken into consideration then it has to file a review application and it is but obvious that such review application should be heard by the same Bench which had originally heard the matter. [Para 34] [1025-EF]
3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 clearly lays down that a review application shall be disposed of by circulation. If the review application is to be disposed of by circulation then there is no problem in the matter being circulated before the very same Bench which had earlier heard the matter. This can be done even at a place which may be different from the original place of hearing. It is only if the Bench decides to give oral hearing in the review application and notice is issued to the opposite party that sub-rule(2) of Rule 22 will come into operation. According to sub-rule(2) the matter should ordinarily be heard at the same place of sitting where it was originally decided. However, this is not a mandatory direction because sub-rule(2) itself contemplates that the matter shall ‘ordinarily’ be heard at the same place. In tribunals like the NGT where members may be transferred from one Bench to another or may be attending a Bench on circuit then problems can sometimes arise. These issues can be easily resolved by resorting to the latest technology and if necessary the arguments in such cases can be heard by video conferencing. The normal rule that the same Bench should hear the review application should not be disturbed unless it is virtually impossible for the original Bench to hear the matter or the members of the Bench themselves opt not to hear the matter. [Para 35] [1025G-H; 1026-A-C]
4. The power of review is not like appellate power. It is to be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, judicial discipline requires that a review application should be heard by the same Bench. Otherwise, it will become an intra court appeal to another Bench before the same court or tribunal. This would totally undermine judicial discipline and judicial consistency. [Para 36] [1026-D-E]
5. In terms of Order XLVII Rule 5 of CPC, a review should normally be heard by the same Bench which passed the original order. The reasons are:
1) The judges who heard the matter originally have applied their mind and would know best the facts and legal position; 2) They will be in the best position to appreciate the matter in issue when a review is filed;
3) If the matter goes before another Bench that Bench will have to virtually hear the matter afresh;
4) Most importantly, when the matter goes to a new Bench the members of the new Bench may go by their own perspective and philosophy which may be totally different to that of the Bench which originally heard the matter.
Further, judicial discipline, judicial traditions and consistency in pronouncements require that the Bench which heard the matter originally should hear the review petition unless it is virtually impractical for the original Bench to hear the matter, or where the members of the original Bench recuse. [Para 38] [1028-E-H; 1029-A]
Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 330 : [2011] 11 SCR 870 – relied on. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499; Northern India Caterers India Ltd. v. Lt. Governor Of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167 : [1980] 2 SCR 650 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.