Union Of India, Through v. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

This Review is directed against an order passed on 8.11.2007 whereby transfer orders dated 20.12.2005 and 14.12.2006 have been set aside on the ground that the General Manager, who has been delegated the power of President having not ordered transfer and has only accorded post-facto approval, the order cannot be sustained in law.

2. Applicant's counsel in Review, Shri V.S.R Krishna contends that the order was proposed only by the DRM but passed by the competent authority, which was not appreciated by the Tribunal. Certain decisions have also been referred to whereby the transfer in administrative exigency cannot be interfered.

3. On the other hand, the aforesaid has been vehemently opposed by the respondents' counsel stating that it is an attempt to re-agitate the matter and on post-facto approval, the decision of Apex Court in K.M Lal v. State of Punjab, 1977-SLJ-372 has been relied upon. Further relied upon is the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills v. State of Bihar, (2006) 10 SCC 509 to contend that the re-agitation cannot be allowed.

4. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that Rule 22(3)(f) Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 and law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 that re-agitation of an issue earlier argued cannot be a good ground of review, which is very limited. The grounds now taken have already been appreciated and once a definite opinion is formed whether the view is erroneous in law, the remedy lies elsewhere. The decision of Apex Court in Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) SC-SLJ-28 supports the aforesaid view.

5. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, Review Application is rejected.