Order Allowing Review Petition Must Be Speaking & Reasoned Order As To What Was The Error Apparent On The Face Of Record

Case: Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA 2057 OF 2022

Court Observation: “Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated.”

“On considering the pleadings, it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference. The matter requires reconsideration…..”

Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference. It cannot be disputed that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Therefore, while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record

“In the present case, except stating that “it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference” nothing has been mentioned on what was that error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the impugned order, allowing the review application being a cryptic and non-reasoned order, the same is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

Previous Posts

SARFAESI Rajasthan HC Imposes 2Lac Cost For Misrepresentation, Not Availing Alternative Remedy, Not Impleading Necessary Parties & For Keeping Court In Dark

Non Placing & Non Consideration Of Bail Order Vitiates Detaining Authority Subjective Decision: Tripura HC Sets Aside Detention Order

Preventive Detention Not Tenable When Other Penal Laws Sufficient to Deal with the Situation: Gujarat High Court

Writ Petition to Initiate In-House Inquiry against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Can’t Upset Concurrent Findings on Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity or Error of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Suppression of Information about Criminal Case by Candidate in Selection Process Can Be Ignored In Certain Situations: Supreme Court

Claimants Can’t Be Allowed to Take Double Benefit of Two Claims Filed under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

Nothing On Record To Even Remotely Suggest That The Act Was Consensual: Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction Download Judgement

Keywords

Review Petition, Speaking & Reasoned Order