G CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application is filed seeking review of the judgment made in W.A.No. 950 of 2013, dated 16.10.2014, wherein another counsel appeared for the Review Applicant herein and by change of counsel, this Review Application is filed. Such a Review Application cannot be entertained, following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. N.Raju Reddiar, 1997 9 SCC 736), wherein in paragraph 1, it has been observed as follows:

(2.) The only difference in this case is that the consent from the earlier counsel was obtained for filing the Review Application by a change of counsel. The Review Applicant, who is the second respondent in the Writ Appeal, having been selected during pendency of the Writ Appeal proceedings, cannot have any right to claim that his selection shall be sustained and the reasons were clearly spelt out in the Writ Appeal judgment. The grounds raised in this Review Application were considered in depth by this Bench and the same would show that they are nothing but re-arguing the matter once again on merits, which is not permissible under the Review jurisdiction. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, (Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, 2013 8 SCC 320), it has been held that a repetition of old and over-ruled argument is not enough to reopen the concluded adjudications and that mere possibility of two views on the subject, cannot be a ground for Review. It is also observed therein that the appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court and it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the Review Petition.

(3.) Further, in another recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, (Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of T.N., 2014 5 SCC 75), it has been observed in paragraph 52 as follows: