Forest Tribunal Unlike High Court Has No 'Inherent Power' Of Review: Kerala High Court 5-Judge Bench

1. If the decision has been based on the concessions made before the Tribunal without the authority in writing of the Custodian or the Government
2. Due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars before the Tribunal
3. When appeal could not be filed by reason of the delay in applying and obtaining a certified copy of the decision

A bench of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque, Gopinath P., P. G. Ajithkumar, Shobha Annamma Eapen and S. Manu in its order said, "The Tribunal has no inherent power of review and the authority of the Tribunal to review its orders will have to be traced to the provisions permitting review. The High Court being a Court of record and being a Superior Court of unlimited jurisdiction will, however, have an inherent power of review even dehors the provisions of the statute". 

"The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8B are not intended to enlarge or permit a review on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 8B(1) of the 1971 Act," it added. 

The five judge bench was hearing a reference with regard to matters placed before it pertaining to a common order dated August 1 rendered by a Full Bench of the high court.

The reference was necessitated on account of the fact that another Full Bench of the court in Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forests (1995) had taken a view, that the power of review conferred on the Tribunal under Section 8B(3) of the Act is a provision independent of Section 8B(1). The full bench had said that the grounds for review under Section 8B(3) of the Act are not circumscribed or controlled by the grounds mentioned in Section 8B(1).

Following this decision, a division bench of the high court in Ibrahim v. Custodian of Vested Forests (2000) had said that the full bench in its decision had only meant that if the grounds mentioned in Section 8B(1) were existing and once it is found that a review is necessary upon grounds, then the Tribunal could thereafter conduct a fresh hearing of the matter and take into account every aspect.

Subsequently another division bench of the court in Thankappan v. State of Kerala (2002) again considered the law laid down in Pankajakshy Amma and held that the view in Ibrahim goes contrary to the law laid down by the full bench.

Answering the reference the five judge bench said, "The judgment of the Full Bench in Pankajakshy Amma (supra) does not lay down the correct law to the extent it holds that the power of review under Section 8B(3) is not restricted or controlled by Section 8B(1) of the 1971 Act and to the extent it holds that a review under Section 8B of the 1971 Act could be maintained dehors the grounds set out in Section 8B(1) of the 1971 Act". 

The five judge bench further said that the word 'review' is used in Section 8B and 8C of the Act, this is not a review as mentioned under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC or any inherent power of review vested in the High Court.

The review mentioned in the Act enables the recall of an order/ judgment of the Tribunal/ High Court on account of any of the grounds mentioned under Section 8B or Section 8C of the Act. 

The Court observed that such a review would entail a re-hearing or re-adjudication of the entire subject matter. In such a case, the dispute is no longer limited to the grounds mentioned in Section 8B(1) of Sections 8C(1), (2) or (3).

Case Title: Moidunni and Another v The State of Kerala and Others

Case No: MFA(Forest) No. 1 of 2015