Dismissed

Bommadeni Ram Mohan v. Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CC/870/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed a Review I.A. and disposed of a Contempt case. The Court held the review prayer was devoid of merits as no error apparent on the face of record or new evidence existed, reiterating that review is not an appeal in disguise.

What did the court decide?

Review I.A. dismissed; Contempt Case disposed of with direction to implement the order of 05.06.2023 within four weeks.

Bommadeni Ram Mohan Vs Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t32521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

REVIEW l.A.No.1 OF 2024

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 24093 OF 2008

AND

C.C.No.870 OF 2024

w.P.NO.24093 0F 2008

REVIEW l.A.No.1 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 24093 OF 2008

¶14

Between:

¶15

The Secretary, School Education, , School Education Govt. ofAndhra Pradesh Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Director of School Education, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Regional Jt. Director, School Education Khairtabad, Hyderabad-

¶18

The Dist. Educational Officer, Nalgonda.

¶19

Gd'B'"'^l5g-?:[['?TT.]

¶20

AND

¶21

'1 . B. Ram [Vlohan, S/o. B. Veera Lingam School Asst. (Maths) CSI High School, Aler, Nalgonda Dist.

¶22

...RESPONDENT (wRrr PETTTtoNER)

¶23

Diocesan Education Secretary, CSI Karimnagar Dioces, Karimnagar District

¶24

...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT No.5)

¶25

Petition under Order 47 Rule (1) r/w 114 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, deserves to be reviewed for the above^grounds and^also grounds which are to be urged at the time of hearing.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.P. SANGAM

¶29

C.C.No.870 OF 2024 IN

¶30

w.P.NO.24093 0F 2008

¶31

Contempt case filed under Sections 10 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for willfully and disobeying/deliberately/violating the orders of the High Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.24093 of 2008.

¶32

Between:

¶33

Bommadeni Ram [Vlohan, S/o.Veeralingam, Aged about. 50 Yrs., Occ- School Assistant(Maths) CSI Aler, Nalgonda Dist., R/o.H.No.11-24-191, Shantinagar, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal Dist.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud, Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat Building, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶37

Smt.Sridevasena, W/o. Prof. SS Murthy, Aged about. 53 Yrs., Director of School Education, Khairtabad, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶38

Smt Vijaya Laxmi, Wo Venkat Reddy, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶39

K.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Anant Reddy, District Educational Officer, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶40

Mr.Joseph Samuel Paul Dayakar, Diocesan Education Secretary, Karimangar District. lt/llG-68, Housing Board Colony, Yadadri Bhongir Dist.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N.P. SANGAM

¶45

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶46

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶47

Review I.A. No.1 ot 2O24 in W.P. No. 24093 of 2OO8

¶48

AND

¶49

C.C.No.870 of 2O24 !n W.P. No. 24093 of 2OO8

¶50

COMMON ORDER:

¶51

Heard Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of review petitioners/Contemnors and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner/respondent No. 1.

¶52

The^present review has been filed seekinq praver as under :

¶53

"...in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, deserves to be reviewed for the above grounds and also grounds which are to be urged at the time of hearing and^pass such other or further orders ..."

¶54

The learned Soecial Government Pleader appearinq on behalf of the Review Petitioners mainlv puts forth the followinq submissions :

¶55

, i

¶56

2 Rcvieu, l.A.l 2021 & CC_870 of2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶57

a) Sub-Rule-4 of Rule_1B of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1991 needs to be considered in the present case since when the order of remova l/dismissa I has been set aside on technical grounds without going into merits of the case, Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-18 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1991 applies, hence the Authority competent to impose the penalty decides to hold a further enquiry into the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, and the Government servants shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Authority competent to impose the suspension from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. The said rule position was not properly brought to the notice of the Court, when the order of removal was set aside in W.p.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, and hence, the present Review has to be allowed.

¶58

b) The period of removal from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of setting aside of the same in the present writ petition is for a period of fifteen years and if at all

¶59

J Review I.A.l_2024 & CC 870 of2024 in wP_24093 2008

¶60

the order has to be implemented by reinstating the petitioner into service, there will be a financial implication of about one crore on the public exchequer, and hence the order under Review needs to be reconsidered.

¶61

c) The order of removal which has been set aside in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, is not on the ground of illegal removal but was only on account of nonproviding an opportunity of cross-exa m ination and also nonfurnishing of vigilance report to the petitioner. Therefore, since it is purely technical in nature, and as such Sub-Rule-4 of Rule- 18 of TS (CC&A) and Conduct Rules 1991, would clearly attract and hence, Review Petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed for in the present Review Petition.

¶62

The learned Soecial Governnient Pleader aopearino on behalf of the review peittioners places reliance uoon the iudoment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Katheria reported in (2O21) 14 SCC 668, dated 23.O9.2019 in suDDort f the review oetitioners' case and conten d s that theLtrder of this Court, dated O5.O6.2O23 passed in

¶63

4 Review l.A. I 2024 & CC 870 of 2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶64

W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in so far as di rectinct retnstatem ent of the petiti ner forthwith without back waoes from the date of dismissal till the date of rein statem ent needs to be set aside and the order of the Court, dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No. 24093 of 2OO8 has to be reconsidered and reviewed accord in o lv,

¶65

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner on the other hand submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence, the review petition cannot be entertained and the same needs to be dismissed in view of the detailed reasoned orders, dated 05.06.2023^passed by this Court in W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in favour of the petitioner referring to various judgments.

¶66

DISCUSSION AND CON CLUSION:

¶67

6 Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Court 1908 which ooverns the^qrounds on which a iudoment or an order can be reviewed is extracted hereunder :

¶68

a) From the discovery of new and important matters or evidence after the exercise of due

¶69

1
1

¶70

¶71

) Review I.A.l 2024 & CC 870 o12024 in wP 24093 2008

¶72

diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant;

¶73

(b) Such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the knowledge of the applicant; at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and

¶74

¶75

This Court is of the firm opinion that none of the above referred orounds exist in the present case that warrant interference bv this Court at the present staoe in the^present Review Petition.

¶76

In the iudqment of Apex Court in Lilv Thomas vs. f IA dated O5.O4.2OOO re rted in 2 n a rticu Ia r at ra No. 5 itiso under

¶77

"56 - It follows, therefore, that the power of revlew can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power, The review cannot be treated like an aplreal in disquise.

¶78

6 Review [.A.] 2024 &CC 870 of 2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶79

The submissions and the pleas put-forth by the Iearned counsel appearing on ,behalf of the Review Petitioners do not include a misconception of fact or law by this Court, since there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of record that warrants review of the order dated 05.O6.2023 passed in W.p.No. 24093 of 2O08.

¶80

The Aoex C ou rt in the Judqme nt reported in 198O ( 2 ) SCC L67. dated 2L.L2.L979 in Norther India Caterers (India) Ltd. VS. Lt.Governor of De lhi observed at^para No. I as under :

¶81

Para 8 : It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and for a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶82

In the present case, this Court opines that no circumstances of a substantial and compelling

¶83

1 Review I.A. I 2024 &- CC-81O of2024 in wP 2409i 2008

¶84

character exist that warrant interference by this Court for passing of orders in favour of the review petitioners.

¶85

The boundarv within which the oower of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC 19O8 has to be exercised has been demarcated bv the Hon'ble Suoreme Court in its recent iudoment in Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan, dated 24.O2.2O23 reported in^(2O23) SCC OnLine SC 185 and at^para No.5.1of the said iudoment it is observed as under:

¶86

"5.1. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on order 47 Rule l- read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review^jurisdiction in an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction oF a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly

¶87

E Review I.A.i 2024 &CC 870 of 2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶88

unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After consi derinq catena of declslons on exercise of review oowers and DrinciDl es relatinq to exercise of review iurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1Code of Civil Procedure, this Court ha d summed upon a s under:

¶89

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil P roced u re.

¶90

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.

¶91

(.ii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on m er its.

¶92

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

¶93

9 lLeview LA.I 2024 & CC 870 of 2024 in wP_24093 2008

¶94

be (v) An application for review may necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.

¶95

This Court opines that the Review petitioners failed to convince this Court with sufficient reasons for exercise of power of Review by this Court in the present case.

¶96

The Apex Court Judqment dated 18.08.2022 reported tn 2O22 Live Law^(SC) 685 in "S.Madhusudhan Reddv v. V.Naravana Redd and others", in^particular, at^paraqraph No.26, observed as under:

¶97

"26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncernents that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be d tected bv a orocess of reasonrno, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its^powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercislng powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A iudqment mav also be oDen to review when anv new or important matter of evidence has emerqed after^passinq of the iudqment, subiect to the (.o n d t at n fhat srr ch evidence was not within fhe knowledqe of the oartv seekino review or could

¶98

<:-

¶99

t0 Revierv l.A.l 2024 & CCI 870 of2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶100

not be Droduced bv it when the order wa made d eso ite undertakinq an exerctse of due iti ence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent On the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court; however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule l for reviewing a judgment has been described as '.for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule".

¶101

It would be apt to discuss the jurisdiction of this Court to review its own judgment. After examining a catena of Supreme Court Judgments (1) Sasi D through LRS v Aravindakshan Nair and Others reported in (2OL7) 4 SCC, dated O3.O3.2OL7, para Nos. 6 to 9; (2) Haridas Das v Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, dated 21.O3.2006 paras 15 to 18; (3) Parsion Devi v Sumitri Devi reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, dated 14.1O.L997, para Nos. 7 to 10; (4) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, dated 25.01.1979 para No, 3 the principles that emerge from a perusal of the land-mark Supreme Court Judgments on the issue of review, are enlisted below:

¶102

I 1 Revierv l.A.l 2024 & CC szo ofz0z+ li wP 24093 2008

¶103

A) The power to^{review is inherent in the High} Court and the High^{Court can review itsown} order/judgment^{passed in a writ petition.}

¶104

B) This^power of review^{is a limitedpowerand would} be governed by the^{principlesof Section 151 read with} Order XLVII Rule^{1 of the Codeof Civil Procedure.}

¶105

C) Firstly, a Court^{can review its own judgment when} there is discovery of^{new and importantmatter or} evidence that was in^{spiteof exerciseof due diligence} not within the knowledge^{or could not be produceddue} to cogent reasons by^{the party seeking areview'} Secondly, the court^{may review its order or judgment} on account of some^{mistakeor error apparent on the} face of the record.^{Thirdly, a residuary clause in Rule1} of Order XLVII^{provides for a review for any other} sufficient reason'.^{It is to be noted that the Apex Court} on several occasions^{has held that the third condition} "for any other sufficient^{reason" has to be read within} the four corners of the^{first two conditions'}

¶106

D) An error which is^{not self-evidentand has to be} detected by a^{processof reasoning is not an error} apparent on the^{faceof the record.}

¶107

E) A review^{petition has alimitedpurpose and} cannot be allowed^{to be "an appeal in disguise". Thereis} a sharp distinction^{betweenan erroneous decisionthat}

¶108

2 Reviaw l.A.l_2024 & CC 870 of2024 in wP 24091 2008

¶109

can be only appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review.

¶110

L2. The Apex Cou rt in th Judq ment re Do rted tn (2024)2S Dreme Court Cases 36 2in"S niav K umar Aqa rwal v. State Tax Officer ( 1 and nother", at

¶111

DA raq ra D h No.16 o bserve dasu nder:

¶112

"16. The gist oF the aforestated decisions is that:

¶113

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

¶114

16.2. 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.

¶115

16.3. 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 e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected,,.

¶116

'1.6.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise,'. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶117

16.7. 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.

¶118

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.,,

¶119

13 Review 1.A.1,2024 & CC-870 of 2024 in wP 24093 2008

¶120

This Court is firm of the opinion that^given the limited scope of_review, as explained in the various Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), i) 2OOO (6) SCC 224, dated O5.O4.2OOO, ii) 1980 (2) SCC 167, dated 2L.L2.L979t iii) (2023) SCC Online SC 185, dated 24.O2.2023, iv) 2O22 Live Law^(SC) 685, dated 18.08.2022 and v) 2024 (2) SCC Page 352, this Court is not inclined to entertain the^present Review, since the same is devoid of merits and hence, the same is accordingly dismissed,

¶121

L4. In view of the fact that Review I.A. No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 24O93 of 2008 had been dismissed this day on 06.09.2O24t the Contempt Case No. 870 of 2024 in W.P. No. 24093 of 2OO8 is disposed of by directing the Respondents/contemnors to implement the order of this Court dated 05.06.2O23 passed in W.P. No. 24O93 of 2OO8 within four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶122

l4 Review 1.A.1 2024 &CC^870of2024in vr'P 24093 2008

¶123

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any, shall stand}

¶124

closed.

¶125

Sd/. B. SATYAV HI DEPUTY REGIS R

¶126

//TRUE COPY//

¶127

SECTION OFFICER

¶128

To, l. The Secretary, School Education, Hyderabad, school Education Govt of Telangana, Secretariat^{Building,Hyderabad'} .. 2. The D]rector^{of School Education, Khairtabad,Hyderabad'} .. 5, fn" negionat^{Joint Director, School EducationKhairtabad' Hyderabad'} 4. The Disirict^{Educational Officer, Nalgonda'} 5. The Correspondent,^{CSI High SchoolAler, Nalgonda Dist'}

¶129

One CC^{to Sri N. Ashok Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]} 7. One CC^{to Sri N. P. Sangam, Advocate[OPUC]} 8. Two CCs^{to G.p. for Eduiation ,High court for the state of Telangana.[oUT]} 9. Two CD^CoPies Plp/gh#'

¶130

HIGH COURT

¶131

DATED:0610912024

¶132

COMMON ORDER REVIEW I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN

¶133

1 rrE sTAf € o
'4.
0i 0Et 2024
ta F 1 1 C

¶134

WP.No.24093 of 2008

¶135

C.C.No.870 OF 2024