Order Allowing Review Petition Must Be Speaking & Reasoned Order As To What Was The Error Apparent On The Face Of Record: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an order allowing a review petition should be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record.

"Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case, the Division Bench of the High Court initially dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single bench order which had allowed the writ petition challenging an order of superannuation. Thereafter, it allowed a review petition filed by the University and restored the Writ petitions and Writ appeals. The said order read thus: "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....."

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order. It said:

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 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

The court, therefore, remanded the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the review application afresh.

"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.", the bench said.

Case details

Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306 | CA 2057 OF 2022 | 22 March 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna 

Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Arjun Garg, with advocates Aakash Nandolia and Sagun Srivastava appeared for the appellant.

Headnotes

Review Jurisdiction - 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. 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. (Para 4)

Summary - Appeal against High Court order allowing review petitions - Allowed - Impugned order, allowing the review application is a cryptic and non-reasoned 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 - Remanded.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment