State Of Kerala vs P. Abdul Azeez

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

1.The appellants are the petitioners. The appeal was dismissed as per the judgment dated 19.08.2024. Stating that the petitioners could not bring to the notice of this Court the impropriety in the order in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.32409 of 2009, which was impugned in the appeal, to pay cost of Rs.2,00,000/-. For that reason this Court failed to consider that aspect and a consequent error occurred. Hence this petition has been filed seeking to review the said part of the judgment.

Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

The learned Single Judge took into account the directions issued by this Court in successive writ petitions filed by the 1st respondent in order to get his right to reckon the service as a Primary School Teacher also. Since those directions did not evoke any response the 1st respondent has again to approach this Court and taking that into account a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed. In the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that slapping the officers responsible for such a recalcitrant attitude with an order directing payment of cost is incorrect.

However, it is pertinent to note that the omission and to certain extent disobedience took place over a long period. The officers in charge of the file during the relevant period are not parties to the proceedings. Considering the lapse of a long period since the dispute had arisen it is difficult to identify the real persons responsible for the lapse. Therefore, realisation of cost from the person really guilty is not ordinarily possible. In view of that matter, the order to pay such an exorbitant amount as cost stands as an error. The aforesaid aspects of the matter were not considered in the appeal.

In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] the Apex Court held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code held that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error that 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 the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code.

In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224] the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. In Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for a review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The Apex Court in S.Madhusudhan Reddy v. V.Narayana Reddy and others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034 : 2022 (5) KLT SN 18] held that a judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the failure to consider question raised by the appellants concerning the illegality in imposing such an exorbitant amount as costs, stands as an error. This review petition is therefore allowed. The judgment dismissing writ appeal No.1416 of 2023 is modified to the limited extent that the order in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.32409 of 2009 directing the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- is set aside.