Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Prop. Of M/S. Industrial ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 24 June, 2022
131-132
24.06.2022
TN
RVW 130 of 2021
With
WPA No.1447 of 2020
Champa Nandi
(Prop. of M/s. Industrial Handling)
Vs.
State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Tapas Dutta
.... for the petitioner
Mr. Subhabrata Datta,
Mr. Benazir Ahmed
....for the State
Mr. S.K. Gupta,
Mr. Rathin Santra
....for the private respondent no.10
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order dated April 07, 2021 passed in WPA
No.1447 of 2020 suffers from an error apparent on the
face of record.
In the said order, the court observed, while
disposing of the writ petition, that the petitioner was
granted liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate
in Orissa and/or the High Court of Orissa for
ventilating any further grievances which the petitioner
may have regarding the efforts of the police authorities
of Orissa to arrest the absconder, namely, Partha
Sarathi Biswal.
Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment
of the Supreme Court reported at (2000) 1 SCC 666
[M.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala and another], in
support of the proposition that the High Court, as a
court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the
Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct
the records. A court of record envelops all such
powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled
in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of
record, the Supreme Court held, is undoubtedly a
superior court which is itself competent to determine
the scope of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court went
on to say that the High Court, as a court of record,
has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and
in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error
is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders
passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a
duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that
regard was held to be plenary by the Supreme Court.
Learned counsel further places reliance on a
judgment reported at (2020) 10 SCC 766 [Shanti Devi
alias Shanti Mishra vs. Union of India and others]. It is
submitted that the whole cause of action for the
grievance raised in the writ petition of the petitioner
lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta
High Court and, as such, this court ought to have
entertained the writ petition and decided it on its
merits instead of relegating the petitioner to the court
of Magistrate in Orissa and/or the High Court of
Orissa for ventilating any further grievance.
Learned counsel also places reliance on the
judgment of Board of Control for Cricket in India and
another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others, reported at
(2005) 4 SCC 741, for impressing upon the court that,
as held by the Supreme Court, a mistake on the part
of the court which would include a mistake in the
nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of
the order. It was further held in the said judgment
that an application for review would also be
maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor.
What would constitute sufficient reason would depend
on the facts and circumstances of the case. The
Supreme Court further held that the words "sufficient
reason" in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code are wide
enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a
court or even an advocate. An application for review
may be necessitated, it was observed, by way of
invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it
is evident that it cannot be said that there is an "error
apparent on the face of the record" or any other
sufficient reason for review of the order, as
contemplated within the purview of either Order XLVII
of the Code of Civil Procedure or Article 215 of the
Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, as held by the
Supreme Court, a mistake on the part of the court
would definitely call for a review, which also includes
a misconception of facts or law by a court or even an
advocate; however, to label even an ordinary error of
law as a "misconception" sufficient to satisfy the
yardstick of review, "error apparent on the face of the
record", would only be under extreme circumstances.
Even if it is assumed that an arguable case on
law is sought to be made out by the review applicant
in connection with the review petition, the said error
of law is amenable to challenge before an appropriate
appellate forum and cannot be the subject-matter of
review.
Moreover, since arguments are to be advanced
and citations as well as materials on record ought to
be entered into and assessed to substantiate the
errors of law contended, such error, even if any, would
not come within the ambit of "error apparent on the
face of record",
Hence, even upon considering the effect and
impact of the judgments of the Supreme Court as
cited by learned counsel for the review applicant,
upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it does
not appear that any apparent error on the face of the
record and/or discovery of new matter have occurred
in the present case to necessitate or justify a review of
the order dated April 07, 2021 passed in W.P.A No.
1447 of 2020.
Hence, in the light of the discussions above,
RVW 130 of 2021 is dismissed on contest without,
however, any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
