9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Selection Committee) which was the respondent in the Writ Petition, For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their respective positions in the Writ petition. 3. The question that arose for decision in the Writ petition, was whether the petitioner who belongs to Meda Community and was a resident of Kolar District, could be regarded as belonging to Scheduled Tribes for whom certain seats are reserved for admission to Government Medical Colleges in Mysore State. In the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950, issued by the President under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, and amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1956. Meda Communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate who appeared for the Selection Committee in this review petition, contended that in deciding a case if the court overlooks a binding decision bearing on a material question, then that constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and calls for a review of its judgment or order. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Babu. learned counsel for the respondent in this review petition, contended that even if the court overlooks a binding decision, that constitutes neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor a sufficient cause for reviewing its judgment or order. 9. On the question whether overlooking a binding decision, is a ground for review, there is no reported decision of the Supreme Court or of this court; nor has any un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erwise would be to multiply litigation, for naturally the aggrieved party would appeal and the error would have to be corrected by the appellate court rather than in the court of first instance. 13. The above decision of the Madras High Court was followed by Wadsworth, J.. in Natesa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar AIR 1941 Mad 918. His Lordship said at p. 920: When there is a legal position clearly established by a well known authority and by some unfortunate oversight, the Judge has gone palpably wrong by the omission of those concerned to draw his attention to the authority, it may in a proper case, in the light of ILR Mad. 955, AIR 1924 Mad 98. be a ground coming within the category of an error apparent on the face of the record. 14. The af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case over again upon the strength of their own omission. If the Judge has decided improperly upon a point of law that would be a matter for appeal and not for review . 18. The aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court was followed by Sinha. J. (as he then was), in Dilip Nath Sen y. Certificate Officer, AIR 1962 Cal 346. 19. In Garabini Kamarain v. Surji Narain Singh the Munsiff had granted a review on the ground that the case law relied on by him had been modified by a subsequent decision. Setting aside the order of the Munsiff granting review- this is what Dawson Miller. C. J., who spoke for the Bench, said at p. 253: The ground upon which the application for review was based was that the petitioners were not aware of the Full Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw can be apparent on the face of the record. It may be apparent from the contrary decision of a superior court but that is not a part of the record. 23. In this state of divergence of views as to whether overlooking a binding decision amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, the key to the solution of this question is. in our opinion, found in the test laid down by Raja-gopala lyengar. J.. who spoke for the court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, [1964] 5 SCR 174. Without intending to deal with that question exhaustively, his Lordship said that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur AIR 1950 FC. 131. Mahajan, J. (as he then was), who spoke for the Federal Court, said that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the question as to how that error occurred, is of no relevance for the purpose of review, and that it is immaterial whether such error occurred by reason of the counsel's mistake or had crept in by reason of oversight on the part of the court. 26. As stated by Wadsworth, J.. in Venkatarayulu Naidu v. Rattamma Garu AIR 1939 Mad 293, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it should be corrected at the earliest possible time without driving the parties to the expenses of an appeal or revision petition to which there would be no answer. 27. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
