Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Where there is a decision of the Supreme Court holding the field and the High Court takes a contrary view, it needs no elaborate argument to point to the error. The error is self-evident. It is held in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 that where without any elaborate 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.
In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs we hold that failure of the Court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.
Orissa High Court
Collector Cuttack And Others vs Bharat Chandra Bhuyan on 11 December, 2014
Dr. A.K. Rath, J. The seminal point that arises for our consideration is as to whether the Court pronouncing a judgment has, for whatever reason, missed to take into consideration a decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view on a point covered by the said judgment, constitute a ground for review of the judgment.
02. This petition has been filed by the Collector, Cuttack and others seeking review of the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11271 of 2012.03. The short facts of the case are that the Tahasildar, Cuttack issued a notice on 7.4.2012 for settlement of sand sairat source in respect of six sand sources under Cuttack Tahasil. The opposite party submitted his bid in respect of Baulakuda sand sairat source corresponding to Sairat Case No.72/12/2013 for an area of Ac.2.00. The upset price was Rs.2 lakhs. Three bidders participated in the auction. The opposite party was the second highest bidder. Since the first bidder failed to deposit the offered price, the EMD of the said bidder was forfeited. Thereafter, the sairat was settled in favour of opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,03,500/-. Accordingly, the opposite party deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- with the Tahasildar, Cuttack on 9.5.2012. He gave an undertaking to deposit the balance amount within seven days. The opposite party has also deposited an amount of Rs.4070/- towards income tax and Rs.20,000/- which are 10% of the upset price as security value. After deposit, he requested the Tahasildar, Cuttack to execute the agreement and accept the balance amount. But then the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack issued a letter on 14.5.2012 to the Sub-Collector, Cuttack directing him to suspend the order in terms of the order dated 26.3.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.14574 of 2010. Being aggrieved, he filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.11271 of 2012 praying, inter alia, to quash the said letter. By order dated 9.10.2012, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the competent authority to execute necessary lease agreement as per Rule 36 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
04. We have heard Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party.
05. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in Deepak Kumar etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 1386, the apex Court held that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The said judgment was rendered by the apex Court on 27.2.2012. The decision of the apex Court was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench for which a direction was issued to the competent authority to execute necessary lease agreement in favour of opposite party. He further submitted that environmental clearance is sine qua non for executing the lease deed in favour of auction holder of a minor mineral. Sand being a minor mineral as defined under the Rules, no direction can be issued to the State Government to take a decision to execute the lease agreement, which is contrary to the decision of the apex Court. He further submitted that the same is an error apparent on the face of the record and constitute for a ground of review.
06. Per contra, Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party submitted that after hearing the counsel for both the sides, the Division Bench issued a direction to the competent authority to execute the lease deed. The petitioner has deposited a huge amount long since. Instead of executing the lease, the petitioners are protracting the matter. He further submitted that even if the existing judgment of the apex Court is overlooked by the High Court, the same is not per se the ground of review.
07. Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with review. The relevant portion of Rule 1 reads thus:-
"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes; and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.xxx xxx xxx"
08. On a cursory perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is obvious that review can be made on the following grounds:-
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which despite due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced ;
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and
(iii) any other sufficient reason.09. The words "any other sufficient reason" has to be read ejusdem generis. It has to be something analogous to the first two conditions.
10. In M. Murari Rao and others v. Balavanth Dixit and another, AIR 1924 Mad 98, the District Judge had decided a suit relating to succession under Hindu Law. The plaintiff applied for a review of the judgment on the ground that the question of law arising in that decision, namely, the question of propriety of heirs under the Mitakshara Law applicable to Madras Presidency, had been settled by a decision of the Madras High Court. As that ruling had not been brought to the notice of the District Judge at the original trial, he reviewed his judgment. The defendants appealed to the Madras High Court. It was held that the error of law committed by the District Judge in not noticing the legal position on the point at issue definitely laid down by the Madras High Court in its earlier decision, amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record and that hence there was a ground for granting a review.
11. The above decision of the Madras High Court was followed in Natesa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar, AIR 1941 Madras 918. His Lordship said at p. 920:
"When there is a legal position clearly established by a well known authority and by some unfortunate oversight, the Judge has gone palpably wrong by the omission of those concerned to draw his attention to the authority, it may in a proper case, in the light of ILR 46 Mad. 955 = AIR 1924 Mad 98, be a ground coming within the category of an error apparent on the face of the record."12. The same view was taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Karutha Kritya Rameswaraswami Varu v. R. Ramalinga Raju and others, AIR 1960 Andh. Pra. 17. The Calcutta High Court had also taken the same view in Tinkari Sen and others v. Dulal Chandra Das and others, AIR 1967 Cal
518. Mysore High Court took the same view in The Selection Committee for Admission to the Medical and Dental College, Bangalore v. M.P. Nagaraj, AIR 1972 Mys. 44.
13. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Where there is a decision of the Supreme Court holding the field and the High Court takes a contrary view, it needs no elaborate argument to point to the error. The error is self-evident. It is held in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 that where without any elaborate 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.
14. In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs we hold that failure of the Court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.
15. In Deepak Kumar (supra), the apex Court directed to all the States, Union Territories, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which was quoted in extenso in the judgment. The apex Court further directed that lease of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/ Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance.
16. Thus, the environmental clearance is sine qua non for executing the lease deed by the State. No direction could be given by this Court contrary to the decision of the apex Court. The decision in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the Bench as has been stated above. The same is an error apparent on the face of the record.
17. In the result, we allow this review petition and set aside the order dated 09.10.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.11271 of 2012. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the assigned Bench for admission and final disposal.
...............................
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
Mr. Amitava Roy, C.J. : I agree.
...................................
Mr. Amitava Roy, C.J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The th December, 2014/BKB
No comments:
Post a Comment