1 1.MCA.658.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 658 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3222 OF 2026 MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh Balaghat .Vs. Union of India and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr A. K. Waghmare Advocate for the applicant/s Mr Kartik Shukul, DSGI a/b Mr Harshwardhan Khawale and Mr Gaurav Khatwani, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr Yashowardhan Sambre, Adv. a/w. Mr Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Ms Shubhangi Agrawal, Advocates for respondent No. 6 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 29 th SEPTEMBER , 2026 . This is an application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rules 23 and 24 of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for review of the Judgment dated 29/07/2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2026(MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh Balaghat .v/s. Union f India and others). 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the record. 3. Shri A. K. Waghmare, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submits that he is seeking review of the judgment dated 29/07/2026 mainly on three grounds. 2026:BHC-NAG:12879-DB 2 1.MCA.658.2026.odt First, the discovery of new evidence i.e. an important document which, despite due diligence, could not be filed earlier. Second, an error apparent on the face of record, more particularly the findings recorded in para Nos. 19 to 28, wherein it has been held that the post of Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the MOIL is not a public post. Third, there are sufficient and reasonable reasons available for review. 4. Shri Kartik Shukul, learned DSGI opposed the application on the ground that the ground as regards the discovery of new evidence is vague and no source of such information is pleaded. 5. It is further submitted that merely stating in the application that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient; but the applicant has to point out the error. He further submits that there are no sufficient and reasonable grounds available for review as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. It is submitted that the prerequisites for review or the minimum requirements to entertain the review application have not been satisfied. To substantiate his arguments, he has placed reliance on the followings judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court: i. Parsion Devi and others .v/s. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in, (1997) 8 SCC 715. ii. Sh. Sutesh Kumar .v/s. Union of India and another, reported in, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 230 3 1.MCA.658.2026.odt iii. Pradeep Kumar Singh .v/s. Union of India and another, reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3202 iv. Dipankar Mahto .v/s. Ratna Choudhary, reported in, 2026 SCC OnLine Del. 6931 7. Learned DSGI further argues that even on merits no case is made out. It is argued that the document filed on record as a new evidence doesn’t establish that appointment under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’) will make the post of Managing Director of MOIL a public post, which is the basic requirement to maintain a writ petition seeking writ of Quo warranto. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is evident that according to the applicant, the Rules of 1961 is an important document and the applicant is referring it as a discovery of new evidence. 9. It is the case of the applicant, as stated in the ground No.(I) of the petition, that despite due diligence the aforementioned document could not be filed on record. There is no mala fide on the part of the applicant, but the said document was bonafidely skipped. It is further stated in the ground No. (v) that the review petition is based on discovery of new evidence-document, mistake apparent on the face of record and sufficient grounds as per the provisions of law. 10. In the case of Parsion Devi and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held thus: 4 1.MCA.658.2026.odt “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".” 11. In the case of Sutesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held thus: “The learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant cannot dispute that the discovery of new evidence or material by itself is not sufficient to entitle a party for the review of a judgment, provided the applicant had acted with due diligence and that the existence of the evidence, which he has now discovered, was not within his knowledge. If it is found that the petitioner/ applicant has not acted with due diligence then it is not open to the Court to admit the evidence on the ground of sufficient cause. The party seeking a review should prove strictly the diligence he claims to have exercised. In a review application, a party cannot be allowed to introduce fresh documents merely to supplement the evidence which might possibly have had some effect on the result.” 12. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held thus: “3. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1955) 1 SCR 250, the Supreme Court held that 'an error apparent on the face of the proceedings' is an 5 1.MCA.658.2026.odt error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law i.e. an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. This position was further reiterated and reaffirmed in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, where the Supreme Court held that to seek review there should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which is manifest on the face of the record and no error could be an error apparent on the face of the record, if it is not self-evident and requires examination or argument to establish it. 4 to 6 ........ 7. ...The guiding light for determining whether a new document can be permitted for arguments comes from the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sen Gupta, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 993, referred to in S. Madhusudan Reddy (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court emphasised that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, it is essential for the Court to examine if : (a) such matter or evidence is relevant and is of such a character that if the same had been produced it might have altered the judgment; and (b) such additional matter or evidence was not within the knowledge of the Review Petitioner and even after exercise of due diligence, could not be produced before the Court earlier. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not a sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae and its admissibility will have to be tested on the aforesaid parameters.” 13. In the case of Dipankar Mahto (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held thus: 6 1.MCA.658.2026.odt “18. A plain reading of the provision makes it manifest that a Review can be entertained essentially on three grounds, namely: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicant or could not be produced at the time when the Decree was passed or Order was made; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason. 19. The scope and parameters of Review jurisdiction have been exhaustively considered by the Supreme Court in a series of authoritative pronouncements. It is well settled that the Review Court does not sit in Appeal over its own Judgment and a rehearing of the matter on merits is impermissible. 20 to 23 ....... 24. In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Supreme Court further observed as under: "...where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier." 25. Thus, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "discovery" and "due diligence" are not independent alternatives, but are conjunctive requirements, both of which have necessarily to be satisfied before the Review jurisdiction can be 7 1.MCA.658.2026.odt invoked on this ground. It is not sufficient for the Applicant to merely show that new matter or evidence has come to light. The Applicant must further establish that such matter or evidence was not within his knowledge and that, despite exercise of due diligence, the same could not have been produced before the Court at the time when the Judgment was passed. Where either of these conditions remains unfulfilled, the threshold for invoking the Review jurisdiction on the ground of discovery of new evidence is not crossed. 26. In S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, (2024) 20 SCC 188, the Supreme Court, while examining the scope of the first ground of Review, held that an applicant seeking review on the basis of discovery of new evidence has to satisfy a two-fold requirement: firstly, that there has been discovery of new evidence of which the applicant had no prior knowledge or which could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or order made despite exercise of due diligence; and secondly, that such new evidence is material in the sense that if it had been produced before the Court, the decision of the Court would have been otherwise.” 14. It is evident from the above referred observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court that review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 15. As regards the disclosure of new evidence is concerned, it is evident from the above referred observation that the discovery of new evidence or material by itself is not sufficient to entitle a party for review of a judgment, provided the party had acted with due diligence and that the existence 8 1.MCA.658.2026.odt of the evidence, which he has now discovered, was not within his knowledge. 16. In the case of discovery of new matter or evidence it is essential for the Court to examine if: (a) such a matter or evidence is relevant and is of such character that if the same had been produced it might have altered the judgment and (b) such additional matter or evidence was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner and even after exercise of due diligence could not have produced before the Court earlier. Therefore, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not a sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae and its admissibility will have to be tested on the aforesaid parameters. 17. Similarly, it is evident from the above referred judgments that in case of ground raised in the review application as regards an error apparent on the face of the proceedings it must be an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law i.e. an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. To seek review in such matters there should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which is manifest on the face of the record and no error could be an error apparent on the face of the record, if it is not self-evident and requires examination or arguments to establish it. 18. Having considered the pleadings made in the application, without any element of doubt, it can be said that none of the preconditions to entertain review application is 9 1.MCA.658.2026.odt satisfied by the applicant. There are no pleadings in the application that the new evidence was not within the knowledge of the applicant. Though it is pleaded that despite due diligence the applicant could not produce the said document, the said fact has not been established by the applicant by sufficient pleadings or material. Thus, to seek review on the basis of disclosure of new evidence, the preconditions which are to be satisfied are not satisfied by the applicant in this case. 19. The document namely guidelines regarding Board Level Appointments in Central Public Sector Enterprises was referred by the applicant at the time of arguing the writ petition. In the said document, there is a reference of the document which is now produced on record i.e. Rules of 1961. Thus, the applicant cannot say that new evidence i.e. Rules of 1961 were not in the knowledge of the applicant. Thus, merely stating that despite due diligence the applicant could not produce new evidence is not sufficient in absence of such diligence is established by the applicant. Hence, there is no case made out for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence. 20. Similarly, from the pleadings it is apparent that though it is the case of the applicant that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the post of Managing Director is not a public post, the pleadings are vague. Applicant has failed to establish that this is a clear case 10 1.MCA.658.2026.odt of ignorance and disregard of provisions of law and not mere a wrong decision. 21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, as the applicant failed on both the above referred grounds, there is no sufficient or reasonable grounds available to the applicant to seek review. 22. Accordingly, the review application stands dismissed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/09/2026 18:12:46