M/S River Valley Tea Company Pvt Ltd and Anr v. The Tea Board and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 23.10.2024

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the review petitioners, who submits that the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in WP(C) 6359/2016 should be recalled, inasmuch as the order passed had been made due to a wrong submission made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners at the time of disposal of the writ petition. He submits that the stand of the review petitioners' counsel at the time of disposal of the writ petition was Page No.# 4/6 wrong, as Clause C(3) of the Tea Development & Promotion Scheme was not applicable to the case of the review/writ petitioners. He submits that the applicable clause is in fact Clause C(11).

¶2The review petitioners' counsel submits that there is no infirmity with the reasoning of this Court in the order dated 29.08.2024, wherein this Court has rightly held that the review petitioners were not entitled to any subsidy, in terms of the XII Scheme, due to the wrong submission made by the counsel for the review/writ petitioners, at the time of disposal of the writ petition. However, the fact is that the work in question for availing the subsidy under the XI Scheme started during the validity of the XI Scheme. The XI Scheme was thereafter replaced by the XII Scheme from 10.12.2014. As the petitioner had started his work under the XI Scheme and as Clause C(11) of the XII Scheme provided that the replanting in all cases should be completed within 36 months from the completion of uprooting, the petitioners were entitled to the grant of subsidy under the XII Scheme, as the replanting had been completed on 10.04.2015, i.e., within 36 months, though the same started during the validity of the XI Scheme.

¶3This Court is finding it difficult to understand as to how the petitioners would be entitled to the subsidy provided under the XII Scheme, when the petitioners had applied for grant of subsidy as per the XI Scheme, vide letter dated 23.11.2012 in respect of Section 25(P) and Section 16 of the Tea Garden. Further, the Tea Board of India, vide letter dated 12.12.2012 had given No Objection Certificate to the petitioners, for commencing the uprooting of the tea bushes in respect of Section 16 and Section 25(P) of the Tea Garden. As the petitioners had started their work for availing the subsidy under the XI Scheme, Page No.# 5/6 during the validity of the XI Scheme, the petitioners would have to show that they were entitled to be given the benefit of subsidy under the XII Scheme, in terms of the provision of the XI and XII Scheme, only because they completed the replanting, after the XI Scheme had been replaced by the XII Scheme. However, the petitioners have not been able to show the said provision to this Court, as to how the petitioners were entitled to be given subsidy under the XII Scheme, just because the petitioners completed the scheme after the XI Scheme had been replaced by the XII Scheme.

¶4In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Supreme Court has given the gist of the various decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC.

¶5The Supreme Court in the above case has held in para 16 as follows:- "16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

16.5. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to Page No.# 6/6 reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

¶6As can be seen from the above, a judgment is open to review inter-alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. Further, an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record, justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. Further, an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected. Also a review cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

¶7The above being said, even as per new ground taken by the review petitioners' counsel, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order.

¶8In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that no grounds have been made out to review the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010204742024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oReview.Pet./184/2024o M/SoRIVERoVALLEYoTEAoCOMPANYoPVToLTDoANDoANRo AoCOMPANYoINCORPORATEDoUNDERoTHEoPROVISIONSoOFoTHEo COMPANIESoACTo1956,oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToTHANAo ROAD,oP.O.oandoDIST.oTINSUKIA,oASSAMoANDoITSoHEADoOFFICEoATo BISHMILE,oPOoCHABUA,oDISToDIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oREP.oBYoITSo DIRECTOR,oSRIoMAHENDRAoKUMARoAGARWALLAoSONoOFoLT.o PARSHURAMoAGARWALLAoR/OoBISHMILE,oP.O.oCHABUAoDIST.o DIBRUGARH,oASSAM. 2:oSRIoMAHENDRAoKUMARoAGARWALLA oDIRECTOR oRIVERoVALLEYoTEAoCOMPANYoPVT.oLTD. oS/OoLT.oPARSHURAMoAGARWALLAoR/OoBISHMILE oP.O.oCHABUAoDIST.oDIBRUGARH oASSAMo78618o VERSUSo THEoTEAoBOARDoANDo3oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCHAIRMAN,oMINISTRY,oGOVT.oOFoINDIA,o14oB.T.M.oSARANIo BRABOURNEoROADoKOLKATA-o700001. 2:THEoDIRECTOR oTEAoDEVELOPMENToTEAoBOARDoOFoINDIA o14oB.T.M.oSARANIoBRABOURNEoROADoKOLKATA-o700001. 3:THEoEXECUTIVEoDIRECTOR oTEAoBOARDo oMINISTRYoOFoCOMMERCEoANDoINDUSTRY oGOVT.OFoINDIA oNORTH-EASToZONLoOFFICE o5THoando6THoFLOORoHOUSEFEDoCOMPLEX oCENTRALoBLOCKoBELTOLAoBASISTHAoROAD oDISPURoGUWAHATI-o781006. Page No.# 2/6 4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TEA BOARD MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONAL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR JITENDRA DAS, MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE,MS L RONGPIPI,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., Linked Case : WP(C)/6359/2016 M/S. RIVER VALLEY TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED and ANR. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THANA ROAD P.O. and DIST. TINSUKIA ASAM-786125 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA SON OF LT. PARSHURAM AGARWALLA R/O BISHMILE P.O. CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 2: SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA S/O LT. PARSHURAM AGARWALLA R/O BISHMILE P.O. CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR RIVER VALLEY TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS TEA BOARD OF INDIA and 3 ORS REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN MINISTRY GOVT. OF INDIA 14 B.T.M. SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA- 700001. 2:THE DIRECTOR TEA DEVELOPMENT TEA BOARD OF INDIA B.T.M. SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD Page No.# 3/6 KOLKATA- 700001. 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TEA BOARD OF INIDA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT.OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TEA DEVELOPMENT TEA BOARD OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONAL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR.T N SRINIVASAN Advocate for : MR. S C KEYAL appearing for TEA BOARD OF INDIA and 3 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA