RAJENDER SINGH versus LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 04-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJENDER SINGH 
t 
~ 
v. 
LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND OR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Review jurisdiction-Power of the High Court-Scope of-Held: Courts 
should not hesitate to review its own earlier order when there exists an error 
c on the face of record and interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases-
~ 
On facts, High Court erred in declining review by overlooking vital issues 
raised and documents placed by the appellant-Particularly when the appellant 
explained that at the time of original hearing he was precluded from producing 
the documents due to bona fide reasons and non-possession. 
D 
Appellant was working as a College Lecturer. He filed application 
before the Tribunal challenging denial of award of senior scale and 
selection grade. The application was allowed, but High Court set aside the 
order of Tribunal. Appellant filed review application against the order. 
Several vital issues were raised and documents placed by the appellant, 
E 
but the High Court did not consider the same in its review jurisdiction. 
Though the appellant claimed that at the time of original hearing he was 
precluded from producing the documents due to bona fide reasons and 
non-possession, the High Court held that the documents placed were very 
much available to the appellant and he failed to establish the situation 
which prevented him from producing those documents at that time and 
F hence it cannot be said that there was discovery of a new and important 
matter which despite exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant 
was not within his knowledge and possession and as such could not be 
produced by him. Accordingly the review application was rejected. Hence 
the present appeals. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Review jurisdiction is available in the present case since 
the order of High Court declining review is a clear case of an error 
apparent on the face of record and non-consideration of relevant 
documents. The judgment docs not deal with and decide many important 
' ( 
H 
1042 
• 
RAJENDER SINGH r. LT. GOVERNER, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS [LAKSHMANAN, J.J J 043 
issues as could be seen from the grounds of review and as raised in the A 
grounds of special leave petition/appeal. The High Court is not justified 
in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may 
justify the claim of the appellant. [1049-G-H; 1049-F-G) 
1.2. The appellant has got a strong case in their favour and if his 
claim is not countenanced, he will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. B 
He has also explained to this Court as to why he could not place before 
the Division Bench, which passed the original order, some of these 
documents which were not in his possession at the time of hearing of the 
case. (1049-E-G-H; 1050-A-B-C( 
1.3. Law is well-settled that the power of judicial review of its own C 
order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to 
prevent mis-carriage of justice. The power extends to correct all errors 
to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Courts should not hesitate to review 
its own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record 
and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate cases. 
D 
[1050-A-B-CI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6101-6102 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2003 and 20.2.2004 of the E 
Calcutta High Court at·Port Blair in W.P.C.T. No. 214/2003 and R.V.W. No. 
3 of 2004. 
Yashank Adhyaru and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for Appellant. 
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Anuvrat Sharma and D.S. Mahra 
for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
These two appeals are directed against the final judgment and order G 
dated 22.12.2003 passed in W.P.C.T. No. 214 of2003 by the High Coult of 
Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair by which the High Court allowed the 
writ petition by dismissing the petition of the appellant herein before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal in which the appellant herein succeeded and 
judgment and order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the High Coult of Calcutta, 
Circuit Bench at Port Blair in Review Petition bearing RVW No. 003 of2004 H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A by which the High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant. 
The short facts, which are relevant for the disposal of these two a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.