Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Satbir Singh – Respondent
Review Petition No. 157 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Gayan
For the Respondent: R. Mazumdar
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors and cannot be used to re-examine merits of a case or revisit arguments already considered.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Review jurisdiction - The court reiterates that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-evaluate merits of the case - Grounds for review include discovery of new evidence, apparent errors, and analogous reasons - Review cannot be based on mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes. (Paras 2, 6, 20.1, 20.2)
(B) Review principles - The court emphasizes that review is limited to correcting patent errors and cannot involve detailed examination or re-assessment of evidence - The court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. (Paras 6, 20.2)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought review of a previous order reinstating him after being discharged from service on medical grounds, arguing for periodical medical reviews applicable only to existing personnel.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for review, emphasizing that the argument touched upon merits and was not a valid basis for review.
Issues: The main issue was whether the argument for periodical medical reviews constituted a valid ground for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that review cannot be used to revisit merits of the case and that the argument presented was not sufficient to warrant a review.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Heard Ms. A Gayan, learned counsel for the applicant, who by means of this review petition has prayed for review of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by this Court in WP (C)/5172/2016. Also heard Shri R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner.
2. At the outset, this Court reminds itself that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise wherein there would be a re-hearing and reconsideration of the inter se merits of the rival parties. In this connection, there are a catena of decisions o the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one may gainfully refer to the some of those decisions:
(i) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389
(ii) Union of India v. B. Valluvan, 2006 INSC 741 : (2006) 8 SCC 686
(iii) State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, 2008 INSC 759 : (2008) 8 SCC 612
3. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra), the following has been laid down:
“The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor’s order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.”
4. In the case of B. Valluvan (supra), the following has been laid down:
“The Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in entering into the merit of the matter while exercising its review jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction to review its own judgment, as is well known, is limited. The High Court, indisputably, has a power of review, but it must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that there existed an error on the face of the record. In fact, the High Court, despite noticing the argument advanced on behalf of the Union of India that the 1st respondent had no legal right to be appointed, proceeded to opine that the panel prepared for filling up of future vacancies should be given effect to. The review of the High Court was not only contrary to the circular letter issued by the Union of India, but also contrary to the general principles of law.”
5. In the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra), the following has been laid down:
“The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection th
