The Court's jurisdiction in review application arising out of writ matters is much wider than the normal review application to be heard by the Civil Court. Court can mould the relief having regard to the facts of the case and interest of justice.

( 1 ) THIS review application is arising out of an order which was passed by this Court on 18th September, 2003. Such order was passed in presence of both the parties. In disposing of the writ I directed the matter to be heard by appellate authority on the basis of the submission of the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This review application arises on that score.

( 2 ) MR. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the cause of action for filing of the writ petition before this court was for not giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the hearing Officer. Therefore, the matter is to be heard by the Hearing Officer first. If the appellate authority is directed to hear out on the basis of the submission of the respondents, in that case, they will lose one of the valuable opportunities of hearing before the Hearing Officer. No notice was served upon the appropriate address of the petitioner so that she could not be present before the appropriate authority. Therefore, in absence of the petitioner an ex parte order was passed by the Hearing Officer.

( 3 ) MR. Barin Banerjee, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, contended before this Court that forum of appeal is available from the original order. Without invoking the jurisdiction of such appellate forum the petitioner straightaway invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In disposing of the writ it was rightly held by this Court that the matter would be heard by the appellate authority and for such reason alone he had conceded before this Court that if the appeal is filed no plea of limitation will be taken by him. There is no prayer in the writ petition to proceed before the Hearing Officer. In the prayer the petitioner himself sought for a direction to file an appeal.

( 4 ) IN reply, Mr. Mitra contended before this Court that this Court can mould the relief if the same is not available for the ends of justice. As per Rule 53 of the Writ Rules made for this Court to hear out the applications under Article 226, the procedure which is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, in regard to the suits, shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings for issue of a writ. Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, made his submission in respect of the first part of the prayer "a" of the writ petition whereunder the petitioner wanted to file an appeal but he did not see the next part of the order which speaks about the cancellation of annual valuation and quashing of the whole proceeding and making fresh assessment for the periods on proper notice to the petitioner arid after giving opportunity of filing objection and giving hearing etc. Therefore, a comprehensive prayer has been made therein.

( 5 ) AS regards law I have considered three judgements of recent times. Firstly, in paragraph 11 of 1991 (2) CLJ 343, Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of calcutta and Ors. , a Bench of this Court held that the Court can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to make out justice in the case. As far as possible the anxiety and endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice. In paragraph 19 of 2002 (2) SCC 475, Food Corporation of India vs. S. N. Nagarkar, I find it is well-settled that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court may mould the relief having regard to the facts of the case and interest of justice. In paragraph 17 of 1999 (1) SCC 566, Municipal board, Saharanpur vs. Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. and Anr. , I find that the supreme Court held that High Court could not act as a Court of Appeal and only patent errors of law as found in the orders of the authorities below could be corrected in exercise of its jurisdiction.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to me, jurisdiction of the Writ Court, in hearing the review application