IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18942 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Tribunal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Integrated Tribunal Welfare Development Agency ( I.T.D.A.) Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Ch. Mruthujaya Rao S/o. Raminaidu Dudduallu, Vizianagaram District. 2 Cho. Govindarao S/o. Late Ramamurthinaidu Ulipiri, vizianagaram District. 3 K.Simhachalam S/o. Sanjeevanaidu Thonam, Vizianagaram District. 4 G.Jagannadham S/o. Appalaswamy Naidu D.L.Puram, Vizianagaram District. 5 K.V.R.Krishna Rao S/o. Late Rajamannar Regidi, Vizianagaram District. 6 B.Jagannadham S/o. Surapunaidu Regidi, Vizianagaram District. 7 P.Jayalakshmi S/o. Simhachalam Regidi, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of " Writ of Certiorari " calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No. Rev.MA.No. 3167/2007 in O.A.No. 9796/2001 dated 30-04-2008 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.18942 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 30-4-2008 passed in Rev. M.A.No.3167 of 2007 in O.A.No.9796 of 2001 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondents ﬁled the above application seeking to review the judgment in O.A.No.9796 of 2001 dated 10-7-2007 by which the oﬃcial respondents have been directed to regularise their services immediately after completion of ﬁve years service from the date of original appointment with all the benefits. The Tribunal after perusing the grounds of review and counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the second petitioner herein, passed the impugned order, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “7. After perusing the earlier Orders, dated 10-7-2007, of this Tribunal, made in O.A.No.9796 of 201, vis-à-vis, the Grounds of Review, ﬁled by Applicants 1 to 7, vis-à-vis, the Counter-Aﬃdavit, ﬁled by the 2 nd Respondent, vis-à-vis, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the learned Government Pleader for Respondents, I am satisﬁed, that, the review, as claimed by the Applicants 1 to 7, is warranted. 8. Hence, the Tribunal doth hereby adjudicate upon the Review Miscellaneous Application, as claimed by Applicants 1 to 7, and set forth for in Para-1 supra. No costs.” 3. The application is ﬁled under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to review the order passed in O.A. The scope of review is narrow and limited and in order to review the judgment, there must be error apparent on the face of the record and there must be discovery of new evidence or a mistake had crept in in the judgment. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not adverted to the grounds of review and counter-aﬃdavit and no reasons are recorded in support of its decision. The Tribunal has recorded that it is satisﬁed to review the order in O.A., but no reasons have been assigned for arriving at such satisfaction. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, by taking into consideration the scope of review under the said Act. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both sides, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 02-09-2008 Bsc