M/S Sri Krishnadevaraya ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5172 AP

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                           I.A.No.4 of 2021
                                  in
                    Writ Petition No.8551 of 2021

ORDER:

This IA is filed seeking to review the order passed in W.P.No.8551

of 2021, dated 27.08.2021.

2. The said Writ petition was filed by an Association of Private

Degree Colleges, questioning G.O.Ms.No.28, Social Welfare (Education)

Department, dated 16.06.2020, whereunder G.O.Ms.No.115, Social

Welfare (Education) Department, dated 30.11.2019 was amended, and

G.O.Ms.No.64, Social Welfare (Education) Department, dated

06.11.2020.

3. The Government introduced two schemes vide G.O.Ms.No.115,

Social Welfare (Education) Department, dated 30.11.2019, which are

called "Jagananna Vidya Deevena'' and "Jagananna Vasati Deevena".

Jagananna Vidya Deevena scheme provides for post metric scholarship to

students and "Jagananna Vasathi Deevena" provides for payment

towards food and hostel expenses. According to G.O.Ms.No.115 dated

30.11.2019, the scholarship amount will be credited to the respective

college account on behalf of the student and by virtue of the

amendment brought through G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 16.06.2020, the said

amount is credited to the account of mother for onward payment to the

College and vide G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 06.11.2020, it is stated that in

case the mother does not pay the fees to the college and misuses the

scholarship amount, the Government is not responsible for coverage of

the student concerned under "Jagananna Vidya Deevena" scheme from

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

the next quarter. The said two G.Os., were challenged in the writ

petition.

4. This Court, by an order dated 27.08.2021, partly allowed

W.P.No.8551 of 2021 by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 16.06.2020

and insofar as G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 06.11.2020 is concerned, certain

clauses of the said GO were struck down. Insofar as clauses in the said

GO pertaining to "Jagananna Vasathi Deevena" are concerned, this Court

did not decide the issue, as the learned counsel for the petitioner

argued only with regard to "Jagananna Vidya Deevena" scheme and as a

consequence thereof a direction was given to credit the scholarship

amount under "Jagananna Vidya Deevena" to the respective college

accounts on behalf of students.

5. At the time of disposal of the said Writ Petition, a memo filed

by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on 09.07.2021, showing

the details of number of students/mothers who did not pay the amount

to the Colleges was also taken into consideration.

6. The present I.A. is filed seeking review of the order passed on

various grounds. But the learned Advocate General confined his

arguments to only two grounds. Firstly, he contended that Government

proposed a revised policy and sought to review the order on that ground.

Secondly, he contended that the memo filed by the learned counsel for

the petitioner was not served in the Government Pleaders office and

hence, they could not contradict the same and hence the same ought

not to have been relied upon.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No.3 of 2021, which is

filed seeking suspension of the Judgment, it is stated thus:

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

"I respectfully submit that at the time of filing of the counter in the writ petition the memo filed by the writ petitioner dated 09.07.2021 quoted in the order of the Hon'ble Court, on enquiry with the office of the learned Government Pleader it is revealed that the said Memo was not received by them and the staff of the office of the Government Pleader also verified and confirmed that they did not receive a copy of the Memo filed by the writ petitioner. As such, our office also not received the said Memo. On that reason we could not deny the veracity of the contents of the Memo in our counter, though our counter was filed subsequently on 14.07.2021."

8. But, as seen from the memo filed by the learned counsel for

the petitioner it contains the stamp of the High Court dated 09.07.2021

with USR No.32887 of 2021 and the counter-affidavit was filed on

16.07.2021. On 09.07.2021, at request of the learned Government

Pleader, the matter was adjourned to 13.07.2021 finally. On

13.07.2021, learned Government Pleader submitted that the amounts

will not be deposited in the mothers' account till the counter-affidavit is

filed and sought for further time to file counter-affidavit. Hence the

matter was adjourned by two weeks and the matter was listed on

27.07.2021 and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

counter was not served on him and hence, the matter was directed to be

listed on 03.08.2021. However, the matter was listed on 27.08.2021 and

the writ petition was allowed in part.

9. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the review

petitioners submits that the contents of the memo filed by the writ

petitioner are not correct and the data secured by the Government on

the basis of information furnished by the colleges themselves in the

online portal of the Government as on 04.09.2021 indicates that in

respect of 91% of the students in various colleges, the amounts have

been remitted by the respective mothers.

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

10. Even though a plea has been taken in the review petition that

the memo filed by the writ petitioner was not served in the Government

Pleaders office, no such plea was taken by the learned Government

Pleader at the time of arguing the Writ Petition. Assuming for a moment

that the said memo was not served on the respondents, it is a ground for

appeal and not a ground for review.

11. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for the learned counsel on record submitted that the grounds

of review pleaded by the review petitioner do not warrant reviewing of

the order and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court reported in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury1.

12. In the said judgment relied upon by the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the respondents in the review petition, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment in Aribam Tuleshwar

Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma2, wherein it was observed as follows.

"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909), there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous

(1995) 1 SCC 170

(1979) 4 SCC 389

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

13. In the additional affidavit filed by the Director of Social

Welfare Department it is stated that the Government after taking into

consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8551 of 2021

dated 27.08.2021 has reviewed the scheme and have proposed the

following guidelines addressing the concerns of the writ petitioner in the

Writ Petition. The said guidelines read as follows.

"1. The colleges shall be notified of the release of Jagananna Vidya Deevena/jagananna Vasathi Deevena to the accounts of the mothers by the Government as soon as the amounts are credited.

2. In case any mother does not pay the Jagananna Vidya Deevena (tuition fee) or Jagananna Vasathi Deevena (mess charges/hostel fees) to the college within a week of the release of the amount, then the college concerned shall file a complaint in the service provided in their login for this purpose in Jnanabhumi portal. This service will be available after 7 days from the date of credit of the amount to the accounts of the mothers. Such claims will be referred to logins of the Welfare and Education Assistant (WEA) or the Ward Education and Data Processing Secretary concerned, as the case may be, who shall then consult the defaulting mother, verify the facts and intimate the parents concerned to remit the monies to the colleges. This process shall be completed within 10 days of filing of the complaint by the college.

3. Government shall release the subsequent instalments of Jagananna Vidya Deevena/jagananna Vasathi Deevena to the mother, only after the previously released fee/mess charges are remitted to the college.

4. If the money is not remitted within three weeks of the complaint lodged by a college, the college is at liberty to collect the fee/dues from the student/mother, as per the norms applicable for collection of fees due from

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

students, who are not eligible for Post Matric Scholarships scheme.

5. In the event of continuing default of mother in remittance of fee to the college, even after steps mentioned in (ii) and (iii) are completed, then subsequent instalments shall be released to the colleges for that year."

14. Learned Advocate General further submits that if the

proposed guidelines are implemented, the colleges shall be notified of

the release of Jagananna Vidya Deevena amounts to the accounts of the

mothers by the Government as soon as the amounts are credited and in

case the mother does not pay the said amount to the college within a

week of the release of the amount, the college concerned can file a

complaint in the service provided in their login and the said service will

be available after 7 days from the date of credit of the amount to the

accounts of the mothers and such claims will be referred to logins of the

Welfare and Education Assistant (WEA) or the Ward Education and Data

Processing Secretary concerned, as the case may be, who shall then

consult the defaulting mother, verify the facts and intimate the parents

concerned to remit the monies to the colleges and that the said process

will be completed within 10 days of filing of the complaint by the

college and the Government will release the subsequent installments

under the scheme to the mother, only after the previously released fees

are remitted to the college and if the money is not remitted within

three weeks of the complaint lodged by a college, the college is at

liberty to collect the fee from the mother/student, as per the norms

applicable for collection of fees and in the event the mother continues

to default in remitting the fee to the college, even after above

mentioned steps, then the subsequent installments will be released to

the colleges for that year.

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

15. The learned Advocate General submits that the order may be

reviewed basing on the proposed guidelines. The proposed guidelines

which are mentioned in the additional affidavit filed by the Director of

Social Welfare on 12.11.2021 cannot be taken into consideration to

review the order, which is already passed, as the proposed guidelines

are not the subject matter of the writ petition.

16. In examining the question whether the grounds urged on

behalf of the review petitioner, would justify the order in the writ

petition, being reviewed, it must be borne in mind that there is nothing,

in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to preclude the High Court

from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of

plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave

and palpable errors committed by it. But there are definitive limits to

the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be

exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge

of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the

time when the order was made. It may be exercised where some mistake

or error apparent on the face of the record is found. It may also be

exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the

ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the

province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused

with the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to

correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court and the

same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Áribam Tuleshwar

Sharma's case (2nd supra).

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Çhandra Kante vs. Sheikh

Habib3, held that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the

original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered

by the court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission

or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial

fallibility".

18. The error contemplated must be such which is apparent on

the face of the record, and not an error which has to be fished out and

searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. An error which has to be

established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there

may be conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error

apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from

self-evident, and if it has to be established by lengthy and complicated

arguments it is not an error apparent on the face of record. All the

grounds of review raised are grounds of appeal and can only be

established by lengthy arguments.

19. A ground is raised in the grounds of revision stating that as the

issuance of scholarships and the method of issuing the same is a policy

decision of the Government, interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is not warranted. There is no bar as such to

examine the policy of the Government, if it violates Part III of the

Constitution of India. Apart from that, no such plea has been taken by

the review petitioner when the matter was argued.

20. The grounds raised in the review petition are, the grounds

which can be raised in an appeal that would be filed challenging the

order in the Writ Petition.

'(1975) 1 SCC 674

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

21. In the facts and circumstances, while it is always open to the

Government to review its policy, this Court sees no reason to review the

order which is already passed and the review petition, i.e., IA No.4 of

2021, is accordingly, dismissed.

_________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 13th December 2021 Nsr/bss

KVL, J IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.8551 of 2021

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

I.A.No.4 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.8551 of 2021

Date:13th December 2021 Nsr/bss