Verdict can be reviewed only if error is apparent, rules HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a judgment or order may be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

The ruling by a Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Justice Mahavir Singh Chauhan came on an appeal made by the Haryana Housing Board against an employee working as Estate Manager.

Counsel for the board informed the court that the appellate authority initially held that the period of the employee’s absence from duty would be treated as leave of the kind due and “he was not entitled to be paid anything except whatever has already been paid from January 8, 2007, to March 17, 2008”. As such, it was not competent to turn around and set aside the order in garb of review.

Taking up the matter, the Bench observed the controversy revolved around the order dated February 14, 2011, whereby the appellate authority reviewed it earlier order dated July 29, 2010, and ordered that the period of absence would be treated as one spent on duty.

The Bench added: “There is a distinction which is real though it might not always be capable of exposition between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by an apparent error. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for rectification of a patent error.”

“For exercising review jurisdiction, as can be seen from principles of law stated earlier, two conditions must be fulfilled’ namely the mistake should be apparent on the face of the record, and it should result in miscarriage of justice. Attainment of both these conditions is essential for reviewing a decision passed earlier by the same court/authority. If only one of these two conditions is fulfilled, the court/authority will not have any jurisdiction to review its own judgment/order”.

The Bench added the order dated February 14, 2011, did not fulfil either of the two conditions, justifying exercise of review jurisdiction by the appellate authority.