Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Govindarajan on 9 September, 2025
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.1265 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1265 of 2024
and
CMP.No.9248 of 2024
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Tahsildar
Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur. ... Appellants
Vs.
Govindarajan ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letters
patent against the order of this Court dated 06.02.2024 passed in
Rev.Appl.No.5 of 2024 in Writ petition No.31885 of 2023.
For Appellants ... Mr.D.Ravichander
Spl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent ... Ms.Dalath.M
for Mr.T.Gnana Banu
(change of vakalat given)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
W.A.No.1265 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(The judgment of this Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.,)
The writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2024
passed in Rev.Appl.No.5 of 2024 in W.P.No.31885 of 2023. The respondent
filed a writ petition seeking a direction to transfer the patta based on the
representation.
2.The learned single judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition
on 28.11.2023, holding that the Government officials have to pass orders on
the application filed seeking patta or cancellation of patta and if such
application is not disposed of within the time limit as prescribed by the
Government, then the officials must be subjected to departmental disciplinary
proceedings.
3.In the present case, the learned single judge in the writ order directed
the Chief Secretary to the Government to initiate departmental action against
the respondents 1 & 2 in the writ petition, namely, the District Collector and
Tahsildar and to file a report before this Court. Since departmental
disciplinary proceedings were directed to be initiated against the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
Collector and Tahsildar for their lapses and dereliction of duty, a review
application was filed by the District Collector and Tahsildar. The learned
single judge dismissed the review petition mainly on the ground that there
was no error apparent on the face of the record.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that there
was no lapse, since the application submitted by the respondent /writ
petitioner was disposed of by the Tahsildar vide order dated 18.07.2023 even
before passing of the final order in the writ petition. Therefore, there was no
lapses or dereliction of duty on the part of the appellants herein.
5.The principles to entertain a review application have been carved out
by the Apex Court of India recently in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna
and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1080. In in paragraph 17, the
following principles have been summarized:
"17.Having noticed the distinction between the power of
review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of
review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
17.1. The ground of discovery of new and important
matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demnstrated
that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was
not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the
party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2.Mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record
may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error,
and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the
record (Hari Vishnu Kamath V.Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1
SCR 1104). Such an error is a patent error and not a mere
wrong decision (T.C.Basappa V. T.Nagappa, AIR (1954) SC
440). An error which has to be established by a long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde V.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR (1960) SC 137).
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason'
means a reason that is sufficient n grounds at least analogous
to those specified in the other two categories (Chhajju Ram V.
Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC'11 and approved in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos V.Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR (1954)
SC 526."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
6.Though there is no error apparent on the face of record as rightly
held by the learned single judge in the review order impugned, this Court is
of the considered view that the competent authority since passed orders on
the application submitted by the respondent even prior to the writ order
passed, no disciplinary action needs to be taken.
With these clarifications and observations, the writ appeal stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(S.M.S.J) (C.S.N.J)
09.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.,
and
C.SARAVANAN,J.,
sms
and
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:42:28 pm )
