Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Case

Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Case - Judgment 2022

NON-REPORTABLE

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2057 OF 2022
Ratan Lal Patel …Appellant
Versus
Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
13.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Review Petition/Application No.
1189/2020, by which the High Court has allowed the said review
petition/application and has recalled order dated 10.11.2020 passed in
Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has restored the said writ appeal to its
file, the original writ petitioner – respondent in the writ appeal before the
Division Bench has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 17517/2014 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
1
along with other writ petitions and they were granted the extended age
of retirement, i.e, up to 62 years.
2.1 The University filed Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 before the Division
Bench of the High Court, challenging the judgment and order dated
23.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 17517/2014. By a detailed
judgment and order dated 10.11.2020, 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.
2.2 That thereafter the University, through its Registrar, filed a review
application before the Division Bench of the High Court. Order dated
10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 was sought to be
reviewed/recalled/modified/set aside on number of grounds mentioned in
the review application. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the
High Court has allowed the said review application and has recalled
order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has
restored the writ appeal to its original file.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the review application
and reviewing its earlier order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal
No. 748/2017, the original writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge
2
and the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 has preferred the
present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. We have gone through the impugned order dated 13.12.2021
passed by the High Court allowing the review application and recalling
its earlier reasoned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 dismissing the
writ appeal. The same reads as under:
“Heard learned counsels.
On considering the pleadings, it is noticed that there is apparent
error on the face of record which calls for interference. The
matter requires reconsideration. Hence, the order dated
10.11.2020 is reviewed and W.P. No. 8096 of 2020, W.A. No.
528 of 2017, W.A. No. 748 of 2017 and W.A. No. 753 of 2017
are restored to their files.
These review petitions are disposed of.”
4. Having considered the impugned order, it can be seen that the
impugned order allowing the review application is a cryptic, nonreasoned and non-speaking order. Nothing has been mentioned and/or
observed 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
3
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.
Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent
on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher
forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the
Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error
apparent on the face of the record.
5. 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.
4
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court dated 13.12.2021 in Review Petition No. 1189/2020
allowing the review application is hereby quashed and set aside. 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 and on its own merits and within the parameters of the review
jurisdiction and thereafter to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The
aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the present order. However, it is observed
and made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of
the review application in favour of either of the parties. It is ultimately for
the Division Bench of the High Court to consider the review application in
accordance with law and on its own merits and as observed
hereinabove, within the parameters of the review jurisdiction.
7. The present appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 22, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
5

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर