Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (22 Mar 2022)

Review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise

MANU/SC/0345/2022

Service

The Appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the order of superannuation and seeking directions to continue him in service till completion of age of 62 years. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions and they were granted the extended age of retirement, i.e, up to 62 years.

The University filed Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, challenging the judgment. By a detailed judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal along with other appeals/petition and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter the University, through its Registrar, filed a review application before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said review application and has recalled order passed in Writ Appeal and has restored the writ appeal to its original file.

The impugned order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non- reasoned and non-speaking order. Nothing has been mentioned as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference. It cannot be disputed that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Therefore, while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction.

Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed.

In the present case, except stating that “it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference”, nothing has been mentioned on what was that error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the impugned order, allowing the review application being a cryptic and non-reasoned order, the same is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the review application afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits and within the parameters of the review jurisdiction and to pass a speaking and reasoned order.

The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the review application is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to consider, decide and dispose of the said review application afresh, in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REVIEW JURISDICTION VALIDITY