Shri Naresh Halder v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/263/2024 Shri Naresh Halder Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G.Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration June 21, 2024 [SR] Item Nos.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on a previous occasion, in an appeal, the Secretary (Revenue) passed an order in favour of the petitioner. However, subsequently, the respondent filed review against the same.
Challenging the filing of the review, the petitioner moved a writ petition being WPA/1014/2023 before this Court when a Coordinate Bench, by its order November 23, 2023 passed in the said writ petition, sent the matter back to the Chief Secretary with the observation that the review application be disposed of on merit but shall not be entertained unless there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or it is necessitated by a reason of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by the review applicant at the time when the order was passed by the Secretary (Revenue). It was also clarified that the review applicant cannot seek rehearing of the matter on merits under the garb of review. The Chief Secretary was directed to take into consideration the aforesaid factor which is implicit in regulation 34(2) of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.
However, it is argued that after such remand, the review application was taken up afresh and the Chief Secretary, instead of confining himself to the scope of review as enumerated in Regulation 34(2), reheard the matter on its merits by reopening all issues of fact and law and as such, went beyond the directions of this Court. Hence, it is argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner adds that the Chief Secretary, in the impugned order itself, observed that the Secretary (Revenue) has apparently committed a mistake by misinterpreting the office procedure and applicable rules, therefore, the order dated August 25, 2023 needs "revision". Hence, admittedly, it was a revision which was undertaken by the Chief Secretary in the garb of review and as such the said order should be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the very premise of the order under review was that two reports which had been authored by the Assistant Commissioner were actually given by the Patwari. On such erroneous assumption, the Appellate Authority had proceeded to decide the appeal.
Upon a consideration of the order under review, the Chief Secretary found out that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the reports were of the Assistant Commissioner not the Patwari. The entire exercise thereafter in the impugned order was consequential to the same and as such, was necessary even within the confines of a review application.
provision of Regulation 34(2) of the 1966 Regulation, which enables the provision of review incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure to apply, indicates that the limited grounds of review were to be discovery of new material and/or error apparent on the face of the record.
In the present case, I find from a careful scrutiny of the initial order under review that the Secretary (Revenue) had proceeded on the premise that the reports given regarding materials seized, which was very basis of the order, had been authored by the Patwari and not the Assistant Commissioner as required under the law. Based on such premise, the Secretary (Revenue) further proceeded to observe that for imposing penalty the pre-requisite is seizure of material. On the basis of the perception that there was no report by the Assistant Commissioner, which was the only proof of seizure of material, the order under review was passed.
In the impugned review order, the Chief Secretary found from the face of the records that the report was authored by the Assistant Commissioner and not the Patwari. The same comes within the purview of error apparent on the face of the record, for which no further detailed hearing or adjudication was required. The next part of the impugned order was a necessary consequence and corollary to such observation, since the moment it was observed that the reports were authored by the Assistant Commissioner, the very basis of the order under review was taken away, as immediately there was material to prove the actual seizure from the location of the petitioner's stone crusher unit. The entire exercise would be futile and toothless if even after detection of such error, no action was taken on the basis of the now-valid report. Such
a futile exercise could not have been the intention of the learned Single Judge remanding the matter.
Hence, on such premise, it was necessary for the Chief Secretary to enter into the question as to whether the seizure was sufficient for the sealing of the stone crusher unit. The Chief Secretary precisely did so. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, as the exercise followed the detection of the error on the face of the record that the reports were authored by the Assistant Commissioner and was, thus, legally valid, providing sufficient materials to show the materials seized. Thus, the Chief Secretary never exceeded the scope of review and/or the direction of the learned Single Judge remanding the matter.
Insofar as the argument of the expression "revision" being used in the impugned order, the same was obviously a misnomer as is evident from the entirety of the order. In fact, the Chief Secretary observed in the same sentence that he was of the considered opinion that the Secretary (Revenue) had apparently done mistake by misinterpreting the office procedure and applicable rules. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional error sufficient to interfere with the same. Accordingly, WPA/263/2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.
( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )