Ratanlal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya

NON-REPORTABLE 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

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified

directions to continue him in service till completion of age of 62 years. Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.03.22 17:36:58 IST Reason:

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, non-

reasoned 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