Scope Of Review Is Restrictive: Orissa High Court Rejects Plea Of Registrar General Challenging Disciplinary Action Against Him
The Orissa High Court said that the jurisdiction of review is of a very limited nature and it is intended only to correct a manifest error or to consider material which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.
Justice S.K. Sahoo, Justice S.S. Mishra, Orissa High Court
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Review Petition filed by the Registrar General, challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.
The Petitioner prayed for the restoration of original Writ Petition and to re-hear the same, taking into consideration the concerned grounds.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, “An error apparent on the face of the record that is, a patent and self-evident mistake which does not require elaborate reasoning, possibility as well may also furnish a ground for review. Likewise, the phrase “any other sufficient reason” has been judicially construed to mean reasons analogous to the discovery of new evidence or error apparent, and cannot be invoked to re-agitate settled issues. Thus, the scope of review is restrictive and circumscribed, standing in sharp contrast to the wider jurisdiction exercised in appeal.”
The Bench said that the jurisdiction of review is of a very limited nature and it is intended only to correct a manifest error or to consider material which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.
Senior Advocate Pami Rath appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Budhadev Routray appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
Facts of the Case
The main ground on the basis of which the Review Petition was instituted, was that the High Court, while passing the Judgment under challenge, allegedly relied upon a fabricated set of documents furnished before it, which led to the error apparent on record. The senior counsel for the Petitioners contended that a fabricated and parallel file was created and the said fabricated documents were placed before the Court to persuade it to pass the impugned Judgment. It was further submitted that had the Court looked into the original record; the result of the Writ Petition would have been different.
Hence, it was argued that the Writ Petition needs to be re-heard and re-appreciated with reference to the sequence of events in the light of the original record pertaining to the registration of the Suo Motu Proceeding. On the other hand, the senior counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Bench was concerned only with the issue whether the Suo Motu Writ Petition was correctly registered, whereas the present Writ Petition relates to the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, remarked, “We are not inclined to be drawn into this controversy regarding the composition of Bench, but suffice it to say that the order of the Lager Bench has no bearing on the facts of the present case because in the writ petition, this Division Bench was only deciding the issue arising out of the enquiry and the disciplinary action taken against the delinquent officer.”
The Court noted that in the absence of any rules/regulation and/or convention or judicial precedent to the effect that before registration of Suo-motu proceeding, permission preceding the registration from the Chief justice is a condition precedent, no fault of the Writ Petitioner could be established per se.
“… even the learned Judge in the letter has not spoken about expressing dissent on 24.02.2021, rather he has mentioned that the judicial proceeding dated 24.02.2021 was recorded by him only on 02.03.2021 and at one place he even says that he dissented on 07.03.2021. But in either case, admittedly on 26.02.2021, when the writ petitioner approved for registration of the Suo Motu proceeding, there was no dissent by the Second Judge on record”, it further said.
The Court was of the view that having delineated the scope of review as settled by the Supreme Court, it becomes necessary to test the present plea against these parameters.
“In light of the above principles, even if the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Pami Rath are accepted in toto, the most that could be contended is the possibility of an alternative view. However, the existence of an alternative view by itself does not fall within the limited grounds of review as recognised by law”, it also observed.
Conclusion
The Court enunciated that a Review is not an Appeal in disguise, and re-evaluation of facts or law to substitute one plausible view with another is outside the permissible scope.
“Therefore, the view adopted by this Court in the impugned judgment cannot be interfered within review jurisdiction merely because a different perspective is sought to be urged”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Review Petition.
Cause Title- Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and Others v. Malaya Ranjan Dash and Another (Case Number: RVWPET No.160 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Pami Rath and Advocate Pratyasish Mohanty.
Opposite Parties: Senior Advocate Budhadev Routray, Addl. Standing Counsel Aurobinda Mohanty, and Advocate J. Biswal.
