Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Nariman Point Association and another, filed a review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of a judgment dated 14th February 2003 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1225 of 2004. The earlier judgment had dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the sanction granted for a multi-storeyed car parking facility and commercial complex at Nariman Point, Mumbai. The Court had held that the dominant purpose of the land reservation for car parking was fulfilled and that the permission for commercial space was consistent with Development Control Regulation 9(IV)(i). The Court also noted gross and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners, who were aware of the project since June 1998 and filed the petition only in December 2001 after substantial construction. In the review petition, the petitioners argued that the earlier judgment suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court, however, found no such error. It reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal. The Court observed that the petitioners had merely reargued the same contentions that were already considered and rejected. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The review petition challenged the earlier judgment upholding the sanction for a multi-storeyed car parking and commercial complex at Nariman Point. The Court held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error, and the review was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Public Interest Litigation - Delay and Laches - The Court noted that the petitioners were aware of the project since June 1998 and filed the petition only in December 2001 after substantial construction had been carried out. The earlier judgment had already considered the delay, and no ground for review was made out. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment dated 14th February 2003 in Nariman Point Association vs. State of Maharashtra.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- Review cannot be used as an appeal
- No error apparent on record in earlier judgment
- Delay and laches bar discretionary relief
- Public interest litigation does not override procedural limitations
