The Upsc vs Ronaldo Moirangthem & 8 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 388 Mani

Manipur High Court

The Upsc vs Ronaldo Moirangthem & 8 Ors on 30 May, 2025

                                                              1




JOHN TELEN   Digitally signed by JOHN
             TELEN KOM

KOM          Date: 2025.06.02 13:46:17
             +05'30'                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                    AT IMPHAL
                                                Review. Pet.No.4 of 2024

                        The UPSC
                                                                                               Petitioner
                                                        Vs.

                          Ronaldo Moirangthem & 8 ors.
                                                                                           Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR

(O R D E R)

30.05.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner namely, Amarjit Naorem is

present before the court physically so also Mr. S. Samarjit, learned senior counsel

for some of the private respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter submitting that it

is required for intervention of expunging of certain observations made by the

learned Single Judge on the writ side. However, keeping in view the submission

made by the aforesaid counsel for the petitioner in this matter is concerned, it

is deemed appropriate to refer the judgement and order rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax

Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, wherein it is observed in

para 16 as thus:

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

Therefore, keeping in view the para 16 of the aforesaid judgement

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is deemed appropriate that

the learned counsel for the petitioner be directed to clarify the said position of law

for intervention in this review petition.

Consequently, this matter would be listed on 11.07.2025.

CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom