Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENYIARAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs VERTEX BLUE CONSULTING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal
"] ["KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENYIARAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs VERTEX BLUE CONSULTING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal
"].The courts also stress that errors attributable to inadvertence or typographical slips can be corrected at any stage, provided the correction does not alter the substantive rights or the order’s intent ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 2278"] ["2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 14873"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2136"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 13"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 2278"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1152"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75584"]- ["2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 14873"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 550"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 576"]- ["
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENYIARAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs VERTEX BLUE CONSULTING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal
"]- ["KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENYIARAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs VERTEX BLUE CONSULTING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal
"]- ["2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 502"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72544"]
Government orders shape policies, allocate resources, and impact lives across sectors like education, land, and finance. But what happens when such an order contains an error? Can it be simply fixed, or are there strict legal boundaries? Many individuals and businesses face this dilemma when challenging an error in government order.
In this comprehensive guide, we explore the legal principles governing the rectification of errors in government orders, drawing from judicial precedents. We'll clarify when corrections are permissible, the narrow scope of , and practical insights from landmark cases. This is general information based on established law—consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.
Not every mistake in a government order warrants correction. Courts have consistently held that rectification is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, which must be self-evident, clear, and detectable without extensive reasoning. As outlined in key judgments, such errors are typically clerical, arithmetical, or accidental slips that are obvious upon a plain reading. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641
For instance:- : Wrong Khasra numbers or typographical errors, like using 'Aare' instead of 'Hectare' in land mutation documents. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 188 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652- : Simple miscalculations that don't require delving into merits.
Errors involving disputed facts, complex legal interpretation, or merit-based judgments do not qualify. These demand detailed analysis and fall outside rectification powers. Courts emphasize: An is one that is manifest, self-evident, and does not require extended reasoning or investigation. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641
The power to correct government orders is narrowly confined. Administrative authorities or courts cannot review or alter orders on merits, discretion, or subjective assessments. is limited to procedural irregularities or manifest errors, not re-examining the substance. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2003 7 Supreme 474
Key limitations include:- No power to substitute the court's own decision or correct errors needing detailed examination. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641- under provisions like , applies analogously: Review is not an appeal and can only be granted for errors apparent on the face of the record. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652- Governments generally lack inherent power to review their own orders unless statutorily empowered. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652
In practice, corrections for are allowed but cannot alter substantive rights. For example, in a case involving a wrong survey number in a bank recovery application under the , the court directed verification since the property was identifiable despite the error. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 188
Understanding the divide is crucial:
| Type of Error | Correctable? | Examples ||---------------|--------------|----------|| Apparent/Clerical | Yes | Typo in numbers, accidental slips 2003 7 Supreme 474 | | Merit-Based/Disputed Facts | No | Policy decisions, subjective classifications 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 || Procedural Irregularities (Manifest) | Possibly | Obvious violations, if self-evident || Legal Interpretation Errors | No | Requires elaborate reasoning 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 |
A government order enhancing Non-Practicing Allowance was challenged for a cut-off date error, deemed violative of due to unreasonable classification. The court struck it down, but only after finding it bereft of —not as a routine rectification. 2021 0 Supreme(All) 804
Courts reinforce these principles across contexts:
These cases illustrate: Even identifiable errors (e.g., wrong survey numbers) may require verification, but substantive changes demand fresh proceedings. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 188
If facing an error in a government order:1. Assess the Nature: Confirm it's manifest and self-evident—avoid merit-based claims.2. Seek Rectification Promptly: Request administrative correction for clerical issues before judicial intervention. 2003 7 Supreme 4743. File Review/ Judiciously: Demonstrate apparent error; courts won't entertain re-arguments. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 6524. Document Evidence: Highlight the record's face without external facts.5. Consider Alternatives: For non-apparent errors, pursue appeal, , or representation as per statute.
Administrative bodies should proofread orders to preempt issues, ensuring corrections don't substantively alter intent. 2003 7 Supreme 474
Errors in government orders can disrupt lives, but rectification is no free-for-all. Only self-evident errors apparent on the face of the record qualify, preserving administrative finality. Courts maintain a hands-off approach to merits, discretion, and complex reasoning, as affirmed across precedents. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641
Key Takeaways:- Focus on clerical/arithmetical slips for success. 2003 7 Supreme 474- is limited—prove procedural/manifest flaws.- No automatic review power; statutory basis needed. 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652
This overview draws from established Indian jurisprudence. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on specifics—always seek expert counsel. Stay informed to navigate administrative challenges effectively.
References:1. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641: Core principles on apparent errors.2. 2003 7 Supreme 474: Clerical mistake corrections.3. Additional cases: 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652, 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 188, 2021 0 Supreme(All) 804, 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1054, 2016 0 Supreme(UK) 291, 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1217, 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2102.
#GovernmentOrders, #LegalRectification, #AdministrativeLaw
Unless a specific case is made out that any new or important material was discovered which could not to be produced at the time of passing the order under review or an error apparent on the face of record is demonstrated in the order of review, the State Government is prevented from exercising the power ... Thus, while exercising the power of review under ruled 16(1) (b) of the licensing order 1979, the State Government cannot pass an order as if it is exercising powe....
The learned counsel for the revisioner Madhusudan argued that if any error was committed by this Court in its order dated 04.08.2022 then this Court cannot review a well reasoned order because there is no prima facie error which can be corrected as error apparent on face of record, in fact, if any error ... There is a fine and settled difference between error apparent on the face of the record and on erroneous order. ... It was also mentioned in the ....
The said Government order withdraws the earlier Government order dated 09-09-2014. ... Pursuant to the Government order several proceedings take place and sanction is also accorded for prosecution on 05-05-2022. He would submit that the subsequent Government order dated 28-03-2023 clearly takes away the effect of Government order dated 09-09-2014. ... withdraws the earlier Government ord....
No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. ... If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order.……” (emphasis added) 19. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. ... Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an er....
Notwithstanding its limited scope, given the unsettling effect that the exercise of jurisdiction under this order has after the lapse of several decades, it is appropriate that the Government considers incorporating a sunset clause. 34. ... For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Mr. ... No. 385 is limited and the District Revenue Officer should stop with ascertaining and recording whether there is an UDR error and, if so, i....
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 has succinctly stated the distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. ... This has led to an error, which is manifest on the face of the order. Furthermore, the Court proceeded on the basis that S.M. ... It is settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject-matter of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made....
That, upon noticing the said bonafide error in the Order dated 24.4.2019, the present petitioner on 8.4.2021 made a request before the respondent No. I seeking rectification of the Khasra No. wrongly mentioned as 455/2/2 in the Order dated 24.4.2019. ... The question arises whether the prayer sought before the respondent No.1 was within the purview of typographical error or review of order was sought in the grave of typographical error ? 21. The petitioner has relied in the case of But....
The present application has been filed seeking rectification of the typographical error crept in the order dated 07.09.2021, passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3215/2019 (Paras Kumar Vs. ... State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. ” instead of “13.02.2019” in para-3 of the order. ... Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that inadvertently, whil....
The non-uploading of the fair order dated 11.11.2024 coupled with this omission in the 06.12.2024 order constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, attracting review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution. ... (MD) No.1848 of 2024) was dictated and pronounced in open court on 11.11.2024 and the failure of the Registry to prepare and upload the fair order shall stand recorded as a procedural error, which is now rectified. (ii)The....
of typographical error of order dated 09.12.2016. ... while correcting the same vide order dated 16.03.2017, Court concerned has held that if there is typographical error in the order, it can be rectified under the provisions of Section 152 CPC. ... Controversy before this Court is as to whether order dated 09.12.2016 is having typographical error or not and further Court can rectify the same or not. ... The said application was considered by the Court concerned and t....
The Government orders in our considered opinion having failed the test of reasonable classification and the classification sought to be made on the basis of cut-off date being 24/08/2009 is bereft of reason and also that there is no intelligible differentia between the two classes so created the impugned orders are clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Government Order to correct the error in earlier Government Order.
By this order the teachers employed in the primary section of these 393 institutions were brought within the purview of the 1971 Act with effect from 01 October 1989. The said Government Order was in the following terms:-
9. It is not open to the petitioners to say that they will not comply with Government Order dated 14.10.2015 till a final decision is taken by Fee Regulatory Committee on the same. The Government Order is meant to be followed by those students, who are covered by said Government Order. Merely because the Fee Regulatory Committee will take time to take a final decision in the matter, the Government Order cannot be put on hold. What for the Government Order has been issue by the Government in this respect, then?
3. When the correctness of a Government Order in G.O.Ms. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies {2002 (4) CTC 385}, to Societies where cadre strength had not been fixed, to adopt Special Bye-laws in conformity with Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1988. No.86, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.3.2001, validating all appointments to Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks, was put to test in a batch of writ petitions, a Division Bench of this Court issued directions in L.Justine and Another vs.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order passed, which is in tune with the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 22.8.2003, by the 1st respondent himself. Therefore, in the lieu of the same, the market value for the said goods will have to be ascertained and then be paid to the respondent. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge and pay the differential amount to the respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
