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…!
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 ["Maqsood Ahmad VS Kumari Salma Bano - Allahabad"] ["STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs PARAS KUMAR - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Yedage Vishnu Baba VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["Madusudan Pitre S/o Sadashiv @ Adhochaj Bhatt Pitre VS State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Collector Chhatarpur M. P. Further Thr. The Officer In Charge Sahayak Bhu Mapan Adhikari Dist. Chhatarpur (Madhya Pradesh) - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Maqsood Ahmad VS Kumari Salma Bano - Allahabad"]- ["Maqsood Ahmad VS Salma Bano - Allahabad"]- ["Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs S.Amir Ibrahim - Madras"]- ["STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs PARAS KUMAR - Rajasthan"]- ["Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs Jayaram Behera Son of Late Bhajani Behera - Orissa"]- ["MALLAYYA KORAVANAVAR S/O CHANNABASAPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["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"]- ["Ajay Choudhary vs The State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["Robert Rubin Raj vs The District Revenue Officer - Madras"]
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 judicial review, 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. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641
For instance:- Clerical mistakes: Wrong Khasra numbers or typographical errors, like using 'Aare' instead of 'Hectare' in land mutation documents. Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - 2024 Supreme(MP) 188Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 Supreme(MP) 652- Arithmetical errors: 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 error apparent on the face of the record is one that is manifest, self-evident, and does not require extended reasoning or investigation. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 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. Judicial review is limited to procedural irregularities or manifest errors, not re-examining the substance. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474
Key limitations include:- No power to substitute the court's own decision or correct errors needing detailed examination. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641- Review jurisdiction under provisions like Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies analogously: Review is not an appeal and can only be granted for errors apparent on the face of the record. Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 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. Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 Supreme(MP) 652
In practice, corrections for clerical mistakes are allowed but cannot alter substantive rights. For example, in a case involving a wrong survey number in a bank recovery application under the Securitisation Act, the court directed verification since the property was identifiable despite the error. Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - 2024 Supreme(MP) 188
Understanding the divide is crucial:
| Type of Error | Correctable? | Examples ||---------------|--------------|----------|| Apparent/Clerical | Yes | Typo in numbers, accidental slips State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474 | | Merit-Based/Disputed Facts | No | Policy decisions, subjective classifications RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 || Procedural Irregularities (Manifest) | Possibly | Obvious violations, if self-evident || Legal Interpretation Errors | No | Requires elaborate reasoning RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 |
A government order enhancing Non-Practicing Allowance was challenged for a cut-off date error, deemed violative of Article 14 due to unreasonable classification. The court struck it down, but only after finding it bereft of intelligible differentia—not as a routine rectification. Avinash Chandra Srivastava VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, Lko - 2021 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. Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - 2024 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. State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 4743. File Review/Writ Judiciously: Demonstrate apparent error; courts won't entertain re-arguments. Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 Supreme(MP) 6524. Document Evidence: Highlight the record's face without external facts.5. Consider Alternatives: For non-apparent errors, pursue appeal, writ, or representation as per statute.
Administrative bodies should proofread orders to preempt issues, ensuring corrections don't substantively alter intent. State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 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. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641
Key Takeaways:- Focus on clerical/arithmetical slips for success. State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474- Judicial review is limited—prove procedural/manifest flaws.- No automatic review power; statutory basis needed. Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 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. RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641: Core principles on apparent errors.2. State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474: Clerical mistake corrections.3. Additional cases: Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - 2024 Supreme(MP) 652, Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - 2024 Supreme(MP) 188, Avinash Chandra Srivastava VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, Lko - 2021 Supreme(All) 804, Jai Ram Singh VS State of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 1054, Shalini Singh VS Union of India - 2016 Supreme(UK) 291, Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Association (Regd. No. 2423/MDS) VS State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Principal Secretary to Government - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1217, Ex-Officio Secretary to Govt. , Food & Consumer Protection Dept. , Chennai VS S. Panchavarnam - 2013 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
