1979 (1) TMI 228 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of a Judicial Commissioner to review an earlier order and the grounds on which a review can be allowed in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Jurisdiction of Judicial Commissioner to Review Order:
The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging orders permitting settlement on part of a public road, preventing access to the road. The Writ Petition was initially allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, but later reviewed and dismissed by a successor Judicial Commissioner. The appellant contended that the reviewing Judicial Commissioner acted without jurisdiction by exercising appellate powers over the predecessor's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the power of review is limited to specific grounds such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be based on the decision being erroneous on merits. In this case, the reasons given for the review did not constitute valid grounds, as the documents not considered were not relied upon by the parties and the issue of multiple Writ Petitions was a procedural matter. The Court concluded that the reviewing Judicial Commissioner acted without jurisdiction, set aside the review order, and restored the original order.

Grounds for Allowing Review in Writ Petition under Article 226:
The Judicial Commissioner allowed a review of a Writ Petition order based on two reasons: overlooking important documents and questioning settlements in a single petition. The Supreme Court clarified that the power of review in a Writ Petition under Article 226 is not to correct errors on merits but limited to specific grounds like new evidence or error on the face of the record. In this case, the reasons provided for the review were deemed insufficient as the documents were not crucial and the issue of multiple petitions was procedural. The Court emphasized that the power of review is distinct from appellate power and should be exercised within defined limits. Consequently, the review order was set aside, and the original order was restored, allowing the appeal without costs.