Back
: High Court Recalls Rs 5,000 Costs Imposed on SP Mewat
In a swift correction of its own record, the has recalled an order imposing Rs 5,000 in costs on the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mewat, after discovering that the penalty was the result of an inadvertent factual error by the court. Justice Sumeet Goel invoked two cardinal jurisprudential principles— (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and (a present order rectifying a past error)—to undo the wrong.
A Mistake in the Court's Record
The case arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Vijay Sharma. On , the court directed the to file a reply with an advance copy to the petitioner’s counsel before the next hearing, failing which the SP, Mewat would be saddled with costs of Rs 5,000. When the matter was taken up on , the state counsel sought to place the reply on record, but the court’s order recorded that no reply had been filed and imposed the costs, directing the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) to deduct the amount from the SP’s salary and deposit it with the .
It was the court’s own staff that later flagged the discrepancy: the state had indeed attempted to file its reply on that date. Justice Goel noted that the relevant factual position had been “inadvertently recorded in a manner which resulted in imposition of costs” despite the state’s attempt to comply.
Cardinal Principles of Justice Invoked
Justice Goel emphasized that the maxim is “founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law as also justice.” He observed that the principle applies “with greater force regarding the acts for which it can be unequivocally held that the Court wouldn't have ever so acted had accurate/correct facts been brought to its notice.”
The principle of , though of “very limited application,” was described as “an indispensable principle of jurisprudence serving the salutary objective of administration of justice in entirety and also serves as remedial measure(s) towards the inadvertent error committed.”
Precedents Reinforce
The judgment relied on a series of decisions to affirm the court’s to recall orders. In Jang Singh vs. Brij Lal (1966), the apex court held: “There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.”
In Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb (1999), the listed the grounds on which a court may recall an order, including “a prejudicing a party.” More recently, in Bhupinder Singh vs. Unitech Limited (2023), the court reiterated that “the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and in such a fact situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court.”
A three-judge bench in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni (2024) confirmed that a tribunal or court is invested with to recall its order in appropriate cases, even absent a .
Decision: Costs Order Recalled
Finding that the imposition of costs was “per se the consequence of an inadvertent error in recording the relevant factual position,” Justice Goel recalled the direction imposing Rs 5,000 costs on the SP, Mewat, along with the consequential direction for salary deduction. The order was directed to form part of the record and to be read in continuation of the order. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The ruling serves as a reminder that courts possess an inherent duty to correct their own mistakes, ensuring that no litigant suffers prejudice due to an error of the court.
