Review
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Querist) 22 December 2009
This query is : Resolved
Whether the power of "review" can be exercised by any court, tribunal or forum in the absence of any specific provision authorising it to do so?
Whether a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act can exercise power of review while hearing an appeal or revision under sections 89 and 90 of the Act?
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 22 December 2009
If there is any mistakes and error in the judgement miscellaneous petition can be filed by the aggrieved party in the same court. In such cases if the error by the court then it can be reviewed the judgement.
SEc 89 of the MV act is an Appeal provision.Any person feels aggrieved by the order on the ground that is not in consonance with sucgh direction, hemay appearl under sub sec(1) too the state transport appellate tribunal against the order of the state transport authority or the regional tansport authority but not against the direction so issued.
Sec 90: the state transport appellate tribunal may on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a state transport authority or regional transport authority against which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the state transport appellate tribunal that the order made by STA or RTA is improper or illegal, the STA may pass such order in relation to the case and it deems fit and every such order is final.
The meaning of this is : Appellate authority can set aside the order passed is illegal or improper.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Querist) 22 December 2009
Rajeev Sir, I may rectify my query. Actually I wanted to know whether a Tribunal under the M.V. Act can review its order(Judgment or award) passed in Appeal or Revision under the said Act. So if any appeal is decided (disposed of) by a Tribunal and subsequently any application is filed for review of such decision, whether the Tribunal can exercise powers of review despite there being no specific provision in the Act so authorising the Tribunal.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Querist) 29 January 2010
In Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust - 1999 (4) SCC 325 {decided on 22.1.1999} while considering the powers of State Commission under the Act for setting aside an ex-parte order, Supreme Court held that no such jurisdiction vested with the State Commission. In the case before the Supreme Court an ex-parte order was made against the respondent and on merit compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs with interest @ 12% was awarded in favour of the appellant. Resondent instead of preferring an appeal under the Act filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed with an observation that the respondent could approach the appellate authority or to make an appropriate application before the State Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order, if permissible under the law. Armed with the order of the High court respondent filed an application before the state commission for setting aside ex-parte order which was allowed. Revision was filed by the respondent before the National Commission which was dismissed. Appellant then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against that order. Supreme Court said that the order of the State Commission setting aside its ex-parte order was one without jurisdiction. It said that State Commission fell into an error in not bearing in mind that the Act under which it was functioning had not provided it with a jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte reasoned order.
