Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel, further contended that unless power of revision is conferred on the authorities, the respondents cannot exercise such power of revision. The memo under challenge is only quasi judicial order, no power of review is conferred on the authorities specifically under any enactment, thereby exercise of power by the respondents - authorities is in excess of the power conferred on the authorities. In support of this view, he placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Dasari Satyanarayana v. Dasari Bapayya8" "Pydah Chalmaiah v. The Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh9", "Koyya Veerraju v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, East Godavari District10" and judgments of the Supreme Court "Dr.Smt.Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (UP)11" "Patel Narshi Thakershi AIR 1941 PC 93 AIR 1963 AP 148 Laws (APH) 1968 7 43 1998 (6) ALD 594 (DB) AIR 1987 SC 2186 MSM,J wp_8883_2020 v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji12" "State Bank of India v. S.N.Goyal13" and "Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamilnadu14"

Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in "Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamilnadu"

MSM,J wp_8883_2020 (referred supra), wherein the Apex Court held that when once a decision is taken on question of law, on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. In the present case, the State reopened the issue and reviewed the order by issuing impugned memo on three grounds, which I discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Change of law subsequent to the decision taken by the quasi judicial authority is not a ground to reopen the issue and review the order, which was already reviewed by the State in revision petition in 2017 itself.