Orissa High Court
Geeta Rath vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No 157 of 2025
An application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section
114 of Code of Civil Procedure.
---------------
Geeta Rath .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Rath, Advocate
Vs.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
27.10.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This is an application filed by the petitioner
seeking review of judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.4050 of 2025. By the said
judgment, the petitioner's case was dismissed on the
ground of belated approach to this Court.
2. The facts, relevant only to decide the review
application are that the petitioner had filed the
aforementioned writ petition seeking the following relief:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit
this writ applications, issue Rue NISI in the nature
of writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to
issue green Card in favour of the petitioner on the
basis of surgery certificate dtd. 23.10.1998 within
a stipulated period"
3. The petitioner's case is that she had undergone
surgery for ovarian cyst by endoscopy on 21.10.1998 and
in course of such surgery, she also underwent Tubectomy
as a measure of family planning. The husband of the
petitioner had submitted a representation before the
Director of Family Welfare, Odisha for issuance of Green
Card enclosing the discharge certificate. As per
Government of Odisha Health Department Resolution
dated 19.10.1983, Green Cards were issued to individuals
having two children and opting for the terminal method of
tubectomy/vasectomy. Such Green Card holders are
entitled to certain concessions as detailed in the resolution
including reservation of 5% seats in technical institutions.
Since the petitioner had undergone the surgery at Shanti
Hospital, Research and Diagnosis Center, Cuttack
necessary documents relating to the same were sought for
but the Managing Director of the Hospital informed that
the relevant records had been damaged during the Super
Cyclone in 1999. On such grounds the request of the
petitioner for issuance of Green Card was turned down.
Challenging the rejection of her claim, the petitioner had
filed the writ petition with the prayer quoted before.
4. After hearing both sides, this Court took note of
the fact that though the petitioner had undergone surgery
on 21.10.1998, she had not mentioned anything in the writ
petition as to why she remained silent for all these years
without raising claim for issue of Green Card as per
provision of the relevant government resolution. Since 27
years had elapsed and the delay had never been explained,
this Court, treating it as a stale claim dismissed the writ
petition.
5. The petitioner has filed this review application
mainly on the ground that she was not heard on the
question of delay but an adverse order was passed against
her on such ground. Had she been given the opportunity,
she would have brought it to the notice of this Court that
the Government Resolutions dated 19.10.1983 and
18.11.1998 do not specify any time limit for applying for
Green Card nor any for filing of applications. The
petitioner's claim was never rejected by the authorities on
the ground of delay but because of non-availability of
relevant documents. Therefore, unless the judgment is
recalled and the writ petition is heard again on its merit,
the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced.
6. Heard Mr. Nihal Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the Sate.
7. Mr. Rath would argue that the question of
belated filing of the writ petition was never raised during
hearing. Moreover, the petitioner's claim was never rejected
by the authorities on the ground of delay as the
government resolutions do not specify any period for
raising the claim. Mr. Rath therefore submits that this is a
good ground to review the judgment and to re-hear the
same on its own merit.
8. Mr. Behera, learned AGA would submit that if
the petitioner is aggrieved, she may prefer appeal before the
higher forum against the impugned judgment. She cannot
seek to re-open the matter in the garb of review, which is
actually an appeal. Mr. Behera, however, fairly submits
that the question of belated filing of the writ petition was
not raised during hearing of the writ petition.
9. Law relating to review is well settled. In the case
of M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool Vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372,
the Supreme Court held as follows:-
A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not
consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for
dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any
great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that
where without any elaborated argument one could
point to the error and say here is a substantial
point of law which stares one in the face, and there
could reasonably be no two opinions entertained
about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face
of the record would be made out"
10. In the case of Rajender Kumar & Others v.
Rambhai, (2007) 15 SCC 513, the Supreme Court held
that first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review
application is that the order, review of which is sought (a)
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record,
and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of
justice. It is equally well settled that review lies only when
there is an error apparent on the face of the record and
that fallibility is by the oversight of the Court. Further, if a
party has not been granted opportunity of hearing on a
particular point, the judgment can be reviewed. In
Shivdeo Sing Deo and Others vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, it was held that the
entire concept of writ jurisdiction is founded on equity and
fairness and if the Court has committed a mistake, it
should be removed by entertaining a review application so
that the result may not lead to miscarriage of justice as
rectification of an order stems from the fundamental
principle that justice is above all. The provision of Order
XLVII Rule-1 CPC permits review even on the mistake of
fact or on ignorance of material facts. The review
jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed
by the Court.
11. The Supreme Court has further clarified that the
expression 'for any other sufficient reason' in Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC is of wide import and encompasses situations
where a mistake or misconception of fact or law has
occurred, even if arising from an inadvertent error of the
Court itself. The doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit,
that no one should suffer because of an act of the Court
reinforces the power of review in such circumstances to
ensure that procedural or factual errors committed by the
Court do not result in injustice.
12. Tested on the touchstone of the position of law
as referred to in the judgments cited in the preceding
paragraphs, this Court finds that the petitioner was
actually not heard on the question of belated filing of the
writ petition. Secondly, the fundamental fact that the
Government Resolutions dated 19.10.1983 and 18.10.1998
do not provide any time period for raising a claim for issue
of Green Card had escaped attention of this Court. Thus,
holding that the claim of the petitioner was stale, the writ
petition was dismissed. The materials on record available
in the writ petition clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's
claim was not rejected by the authorities on the ground of
delay but for non-availability of documents. So, the
justifiability of the rejection of the claim on the above
ground was to be adjudicated in the writ petition. But this
Court proceeded from a different perspective and dismissed
the writ petition on the ground of belated filing. From what
has been narrated before, this amounts to a mistake of fact
committed by the Court resulting in miscarriage of justice.
This Court, therefore finds considerable force in the
submission of the petitioner.
13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the
application for review is allowed. The judgment dated
25.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4050 of
2025 is hereby recalled. The Registry is directed to list the
said writ petition for hearing.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 27th October, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 27-Oct-2025 17:25:02
