Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association...

Kantaru Rajeevaru VS Indian Young Lawyers Association - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 839 : Review applications in the context of a writ petition are not subject to the limitations of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which restrict review in civil and criminal proceedings. Writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are not classified as civil or criminal proceedings and therefore fall outside the purview of these restrictions. Consequently, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to review its judgments or orders in writ petitions, including those filed as Public Interest Litigations, without being bound by the procedural limitations applicable to civil or criminal proceedings. This is supported by Article 137 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order, and by the fact that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, do not impose such restrictions on writ petitions under Part III of the Rules, which governs Article 32 proceedings.Checking relevance for Surinderjit Singh Mand VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Travancore Devaswom Board VS Ayyappa Spices...

Checking relevance for Narmada Bachao Andolan VS Union Of India...

Narmada Bachao Andolan VS Union Of India - 2000 7 Supreme 264 : The scope of a review application in the context of a writ petition is limited to situations where there has been a failure by any authority to act according to law, non-action, or action in violation of law. Courts will not interfere in matters of policy decision, such as whether to undertake an infrastructural project, what type of project to undertake, or how it should be executed. These are considered policy decisions within the executive''''s domain, and courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate them. A challenge to a policy decision must be made before the execution of the project begins; if a petitioner delays and the project has already commenced, the challenge may be dismissed on the grounds of laches. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should not degenerate into ''''Publicity Interest Litigation'''' or ''''Private Inquisitiveness Litigation,'''' and courts should not become an approval authority for projects approved after due deliberation. The court''''s role is to ensure that the system works as envisaged, not to review policy decisions. In cases where a project has been approved by the Planning Commission and involves national interest, the court should refrain from reviewing the decision unless there is a blatant illegality or mala fide intent. The court''''s jurisdiction is to ensure implementation of binding awards, not to halt projects due to policy disagreements. The court may issue directions to ensure compliance with conditions of environmental clearance and relief and rehabilitation, but not to stop construction on policy grounds.Checking relevance for Benedict Denis Kinny VS Tulip Brian Miranda...

Checking relevance for Janata Dal: Janata Dal: Harinder Singh Chowdhary: Janata Dal: Communist Party Of India (Marxist) : Indian Congress (Socialist) By General Secretary: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Nalla Thampy Thera VS H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: Union Of India: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: Honble High Court Of Delhi: Union Of India...

Checking relevance for Binny LTD. VS V. Sadasivans...

Checking relevance for Contract For Emergency Medical Services vs State Of Maharashtra...

Contract For Emergency Medical Services vs State Of Maharashtra - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 631 : The scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness and ensuring transparency. Courts cannot interfere with decisions made by competent authorities unless there is illegality or irrationality. This principle applies to writ petitions challenging public procurement processes, such as the MEMS Project 2024 tender, where the court upheld the process as fair, transparent, and reasonable, with no evidence of mala fide conduct or procedural impropriety. The court emphasized minimal interference in public interest projects, reinforcing that judicial review in such contexts is confined to checking for arbitrariness, illegality, or irrationality, not substituting its judgment for that of the administrative authority.Checking relevance for Contract For Emergency Medical Services Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors....

Contract For Emergency Medical Services Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 632 : The scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness and ensuring transparency, not to reassess the soundness of decisions made by competent authorities. Judicial review should not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is clear evidence of illegality or irrationality.Checking relevance for Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited VS State Of U. P. ...

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited VS State Of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 20 : The scope of a review application in the context of a writ petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, such as clerical mistakes, errors of calculation, or patent illegality, and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or re-evaluating the merits of the decision. Judicial review of policy decisions, including those underlying writ petitions, is confined to determining whether the policy is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or violates fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. Courts do not interfere with policy decisions merely because they are erroneous, unwise, or could be improved; they only intervene when the policy is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law. This principle is grounded in the doctrine of separation of powers, which prevents courts from substituting their judgment for that of the executive on matters of policy, even if a different policy might be fairer or wiser. The Supreme Court has consistently held that courts cannot act as appellate authorities examining the suitability, appropriateness, or wisdom of a policy, nor can they serve as advisors to the executive. The scope of judicial review in writ petitions is thus narrowly circumscribed to ensure constitutional validity and procedural fairness, not to second-guess administrative discretion.

• Scope of Review in Writ Petitions - Review petitions are limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and do not permit re-examination of facts, re-argument, or re-hearing of the case. They are not meant to serve as a forum for presenting new arguments or evidence that were not raised earlier. The review process primarily concerns rectifying mistakes or errors in the original judgment or order, not re-litigating the case. ["State of West Bengal VS Gopal Chandra Pramanik - Calcutta"], ["D. Chitharanjan VS Member Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board - Madras"], ["B. Ram Mohan VS Secretary, School Education, Hyderabad - Telangana"]

• Error Self-Evident and Limited Grounds - The courts emphasize that review is confined to errors that are self-evident or apparent on the record. It cannot be used to re-assess the correctness of a decision based on merits or new material, nor to substitute the judgment of the court with a different view. Grounds such as mere disagreement with the decision or the possibility of multiple interpretations do not qualify as valid for review. ["State of West Bengal VS Gopal Chandra Pramanik - Calcutta"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]

• Re-argument and Re-hearing Prohibited - A review application cannot function as an appeal or a second chance to re-argue the case. The petitioner must demonstrate a clear mistake or error in the original order, not seek to re-litigate issues or introduce new facts. Attempts to re-argue the case are considered outside the scope of review. ["Pradeep Kumar Singh VS Union of India - Delhi"], ["Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Th. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. , Housing & Urban Dev. Deptt. VS Ram Rattan, S/o Sh. Dina Nath - Jammu and Kashmir"]

• Inherent Power of Courts - Courts have an inherent power to review their own orders in exceptional circumstances, but this is exercised within strict limits. The scope is confined to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating evidence or merits. The power is not to be invoked lightly and is exercised with caution. ["B. Ram Mohan VS Secretary, School Education, Hyderabad - Telangana"], ["National Highways Authority Of India, Through Project Director VS Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal - Chhattisgarh"]

• Limitations and Principles from Supreme Court - Supreme Court rulings reinforce that review is a limited jurisdiction, primarily to correct errors or mistakes, not to re-examine the entire case. The possibility of two plausible views on a matter does not justify review, and no further review can be entertained once a review petition is dismissed. ["National Highways Authority Of India, Through Project Director VS Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal - Chhattisgarh"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Dr Ruhul Amin Bepari, S/O M U Bepari vs State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Higher Education Department - Gauhati"]

Analysis and Conclusion:The scope of a review application in the context of a writ petition is narrowly defined. It is intended to correct only patent errors or mistakes apparent on the record, not to re-argue the case or re-examine facts or merits. Courts emphasize that review is not an appellate process but a limited corrective mechanism. Consequently, petitions seeking to re-argue issues, introduce new evidence, or challenge the correctness of the decision on merits are generally dismissed, reaffirming the limited scope and purpose of review in judicial proceedings.