IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1729 of 2006 MD.HELAL AHMAD BULAND AKHTAR Versus CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- C. REV. No.163 of 2007 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ors Versus MD.HELAL AHMAD BULAND AKHATAR ----------- 13. 20.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and the learned Counsel for the respondent in Civil Review No. 163 of 2007 The Respondent is the petitioner in MJC No. 1729 of 2006 and the Electricity Board is the opposite party therein. The respondent in Civil Review application came to this Court in CWJC No. 2626 of 2005 aggrieved by the denial of electric connection to him in the premises in question. The Electricity Board contested the matter and filed its counter affidavit. The Board primarily took two objections; (i) that the matter was pending before the Bijli Adalat vide Complaint Case No. 141/2004 and (ii) that the respondent obtained the possession of the premises in an Eviction Suit on 18.4.1993 and as per records of the Board the supply line was disconnected on 27.1.1999.Appended as Annexure to the counter affidavit to the writ petition were only documents with regard to the Bijli Adalat and the demand notice in pursuance of the requisition for the connection in context of the earlier dues. The writ Court after examination of the original records arrived at the findings as follows:- “In support of that an extract of the ledger has been produced in court. From that it appears that for the 2 period January, 1994 until August, 1997 two hundred units had been allegedly consumed every month except during the period November, 1995 to February 1996 when monthly consumption was four hundred units. It has then been shown that during the months of November, 1997 to January 1999 allegedly monthly consumption was fifty units. That itself suggest that bills, if any, raised by the Board on the tenant of the petitioner was average bills and not of actual consumption. There is, therefore, no acceptable evidence of user of electricity by the petitioner of the supply effected by the Board to the tenant of the petitioner” It was then observed:- “Therefore, apart from the contention that the disconnection was effected on 27th January 1999 and average bills were raised on the tenant of the petitioner, there is no evidence that the petitioner had used any supply effected to the connection which had been laid for supplying electricity to the tenant of the petitioner.” The contention of the Board was noticed ion the following terms: “Learned Counsel for the Board submitted that the petitioner demolished the old house and constructed a new house and, accordingly, it must be presumed that the petitioner has used electricity. There is no such presumption in law and, accordingly, on the basis thereof the Board cannot proceed.” The Electricity Board preferred LPA No. 611 of 2006.The order dated 2.8.2007 in the LPA reads as follows:- “After some arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this appeal 3 enabling the appellants to file a review application against the order impugned. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.” It is apparent from the order of the Appellate Bench that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn to enable the Board to file a review application. Such withdrawal was not on any observation of the Court, as no liberty for the purpose was granted. This was the desire of the Board itself. It is a matter of common practice that when a party is unable to persuade the Court to interfere, it prefers to withdraw the application rather than to invite an adverse order. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the LPA came to be withdrawn in the aforesaid circumstances. The jurisdiction of this Court on a review application is extremely limited. Some of the instances for exercise of review jurisdiction shall be: (a) Apparent error in law; (b) Incorrect or misappreciation of facts already available on the record; (c) Materials not available to a party which subsequently surfaced and which have a vital bearing on the case. These are some of the instances. A review application is neither the jurisdiction for clarification of the order or for re- examination of entire issues on facts, except in some of the circumstances enumerated above. 4 In 2008 (8) SCC 612 (State of West Bengal & ors. Vrs Kamal Sengupta & anr.) it has been held at paragraph 18 as follows:- ‟18…. This would necessarily mean that a Tribunal can review its order/decision on the discovery of new or important matter or evidence which the applicant would not produce at the time of initial decision despite exercise of duty diligence, or the same was not within his knowledge or if it is shown that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or there exists some other reason, which, in the opinion of the Tribunal is sufficient for reviewing the earlier order/decision.‟ In the same judgment at paragraph 22 it has been held as follows:- ‟22 The term „mistake or error apparent‟ by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts, or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over the judgment/decision‟. In the present case, even if the case of the Board sought to be made in the review application with regard to the average 5 consumption with regard to a disconnected line be accepted, the issue of facts were considered by the writ court. Original documents were produced. In the review application the Board seeks to place before this Court fresh material by way of an extract of the ledger document showing a meter installed and certain purported readings which are also suggestive of nothing more than average consumption. This is at Annexure 2 to the review application. Interestingly enough it shows that no meter was found on the spot. In any event of the matter, even if Annexure 2 has to be looked into, it is a document from the records of the Board. What may be its purport and what may be its import could have been decided before the writ Court itself. If the Board had documents available with it which it seeks to make ground in review but chose to withhold it from the writ court, this Court is not satisfied that the aforesaid should be sufficient ground for interference in review jurisdiction. In any view of the matter, even in the review application the Board has been unable to demonstrate any fresh facts concealed by the writ petitioner on the earlier occasion when the Board had adequate opportunity to contest and the writ court recorded a finding of fact of no actual consumption but only average reading. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noticed above, finds it extremely difficult to reopen the entire writ petition on facts entirely in its review jurisdiction. This Court is satisfied that to do so would be completely contrary 6 and illegal to the settled parameters of the review jurisdiction. Civil Review No. 163 of 2007 stands dismissed. MJC No. 1729 of 2006 is disposed with the direction to the Board to now proceed in accordance with law in context of the dismissal of the review application. The Board is expected to act in accordance with the judgement of the writ petition expeditiously on the issue of electric connection. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)