KHAITAN INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed for review of our judgment dated 6th April, 1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the applicant herein was dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the applicant, inter alia, submitted that there exists an error apparent on the face of the records necessitating review of the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that this Court has failed to take notice of the fact that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, alternative remedy cannot be said to be a bar. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, namely, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.), reported in AIR 1987 SC 2186 : (1987 Lab IC 1901); M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 556 and also in AIR 1961 SC 1506 and in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 22.

(3.) According to the learned counsel as in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court even the exception to the rule namely the writ Court shall not ordinarily entertain the writ application has no application in the case where the principles of natural justice has been violated, in the interest of justice the said order should be reviewed. Relying on the basis of the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, J. and K. v. Pine Chemicals Ltd., reported in 1995 (1) SCC 58 : (1995 AIR SCW 1717) the learned counsel submitted that even where interpretation of a statute law which was at variance with the clear and simple language thereof, was held to be an error apparent on the face of the records. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that reliance placed by this Court upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 364 : (AIR 1996 SC 1669) is misplaced as in some other decisions which are of larger Bench namely AIR 1958 SC 86 and AIR 1981 SC 136, it has been held that violation of principles of natural justice itself was a prejudice.