Madras High Court
B.Vivekanandan vs J.Janorious Fausta on 1 March, 2023
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
Review Application No.8 of 2020
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Review Application No.8 of 2020
B.Vivekanandan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.J.Janorious Fausta
2.M.Uma Devi
3.K.Radha
4.M.Sureshkumar
5.P.K.Ajitha
6.P.K.Murugan
7.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
8.The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 600 004.
9.The Deputy Inspector of Police,
Technical Services,
Chennai – 600 004.
10.C.Anand Kumar
11.P.Krishnaswamy
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.8 of 2020
12.S.Maheswaran
13.S.Sekar
14.K.Gokulakannan
15.R.Vijayasekaran
16.S.Ravikumar
17.H.Arunkumar
18.M.Uma Maheswari
19.P.Hemalatha
20.N.jagadesan
21.R.Raja
22.R.Satyanarayanan
23.Saravanan
24.B.Raju
25.R.Saratha
26.N.Naresh Kumar
27.U.Parthasarathy
28.S.Parimala Devi
29.D.Rajesh
30.M.Bhuvaneswaran
31.V.Akila
32.M.Devendiran
33.K.M.Saravanan
34.K.Srinivasan
35.A.Sundar
36.K.Madhav Mohan
37.A.Sundaravadivelu
38.P.Manjula
39.M.K.Shanthi
40.N.Chitra ...Respondents
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the order dated 05.12.2019 in W.A.No.1448 of 2018.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.8 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Sivakumar for R1
Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.T.Balaji for R4
Mr.M.Radhakrishnan for R6
Mr.K.M.Ramesh for R14
Mr.S.Silambanan, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Additional Government Pleader for R7 to R9
R2, 3, 5, 10 to 13, 15, 17 to 40 – served -
No appearance
R16 – Died (Dropped from array of parties
vide order, dt.02.08.2022 in
Rev.A.Nos.8/2020 & 211/2021
ORDER
The sole ground, on which, review is sought for is that the review applicant was not served notice in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal came to be allowed without hearing him. While entertaining the review, a Division Bench had passed the following the order on 05.01.2022:-
3/7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.8 of 2020 “The review applications have been filed to challenge the judgment dated 05.12.2019 passed in W.A.No.1448 of 2018 on the ground that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents in the writ appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
2.A perusal of the judgment shows representation of few respondents. But to ascertain whether notices were issued and served on all the respondents in the writ appeal, the Registry is directed to place the records of the writ appeal. The Registry is further directed to prepare a note as to whether notice was issued on respondents and they were served before the date of hearing of the appeal.
3.Let these review applications be listed on 02.02.2022 for compliance of the direction given above.”
2.The Registry has filed a report pursuant to the said order, which shows that the complaint of the applicant in Review Application No.8 of 2020 is correct and no notice was served on him in the Writ Appeal, when the Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench. Once it is conceded that notice was not served on one of the respondents, the order, which reverses the order of the Writ Court has to be necessarily re-called.
4/7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.8 of 2020
3.The next question that would arise is whether the order could be re-called only in respect of the petitioner or in its entirety. Since it is a matter concerning seniority of a bunch of persons, who were appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Technical) in the Police force in the same recruitment, re-
calling the order in respect of one person alone would not be a correct resolution. Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code envisages such situation and empowers the Court to re-call the entire decree. A Writ Appeal being an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Hence, exercising the power under Proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9, we re-call the entire judgment made in the Writ Appeal No. 1448 of 2018 dated 05.12.2019.
4.In view of the above, this Review Application stands allowed.
(R.S.M., J.) (K.G.T., J.)
01.03.2023
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Nuetral Citation : Yes/No
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.8 of 2020 To:-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector of Police, Technical Services, Chennai – 600 004.6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.8 of 2020 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
KKN Review Application No.8 of 2020 01.03.2023 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis