Read Time: 06 minutes

While remarking that while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to satisfy itself of any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction, the Top Court on Tuesday said,

"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."

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna further held that 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 that error apparent on the face of the record was, 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...", added the 2-judge bench.

These observations were made by the Top Court while allowing an appeal filed by one Ratan Lal Patel whose prayer for letting him to continue his service at Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya till completion of age of 62 years was denied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court while allowing a review petition/application filed by the University.

Patel had filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of superannuation which was allowed. The University inturn filed a Writ Appeal which was disallowed, so it filed a review application. This review was allowed by the High Court which recalled the original order.

Aggrieved by this, Patel approached the Top Court.

After perusing the impugned order the top court was of the view that the said order was 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...", said the bench.

The bench further held that except stating that “it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference”, nothing had been mentioned on what was that error apparent on the face of the record.

"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", ordered the Court.

Cause Title: Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another