UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (SHIPPING) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SHIPPING, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) AND ASSISTANT GODI PRABHANDHAK, SHRAM PRASHASAN MUMBAI PORT TRUST (O.B.L.) Vs. SMT. ANWARI BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. D.C. Lakha, Administrative Member in O.A. No. 1502 of 2011 -Smt. Anwari Begam vs. Union of India and others. The brief facts (for the purpose of this Review Application) are that Smt. Anwari Begam filed O.A. No. 1502 of 2011 to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to settle the family pension of applicant and other dues payable to her and paid to the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due amount to the date of actual payment. This O.A. was finally decided on merits by the Hon'ble Single Member holding that the applicant is entitled to family pension and other dues payable to her with interest at the prevalent rate from the date amount became due till the date of payment within three months from the communication of this order.

(2.) THIS review application has been filed by the respondents in the O.A. mainly on the grounds that the present case pertains to Mumbai Port Trust, which has not been notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the point of jurisdiction has not been looked into while passing the Order on merits. It is settled principle of law that the legal points may be considered at any time even if it has not been raised in the pleading of either party. A bare perusal of the Order dated 07.09.2012 shows that the Order passed by the Tribunal suffers from apparent error on the face of record and, as such, is liable to be reviewed by the Tribunal.

(3.) REJOINDER Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the review applicants stating that this Tribunal has not given any finding on the point of jurisdiction and the applicant has made a declaration in para. 2 of the O.A. that the dispute, in question, is under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as such, burden of proof lies upon the applicant. The applicant has made a false declaration before the Tribunal in para. 2 of the O.A. It is settled principle of law that the legal question can be raised at any stage even in execution proceedings.