It was observed by the Supreme Court that an order allowing a review petition should be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record.

The Bench consisting of Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed: “Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated."

In the case Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, the Division Bench of the High Court at first dismissed a writ appeal that challenged a single bench order which had allowed the writ petition challenging an order of superannuation. 

Subsequently, it allowed a review petition which was filed by the University and reinstituted the writ petitions and writ appeals. 

The said order reads: “On considering the pleadings, it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of the record which calls for interference. The matter requires reconsideration….”

The bench of the Apex Court in appeal noted that order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order.

It also said that Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference. It cannot be disputed that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Therefore, while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. 

There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record.

Therefore, the court remanded the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court in order to decide the new review application.

“In the present case, except stating that "it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference", nothing has been specified on what was the error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order, therefore, which allowed the review application being a cryptic and non-reasoned order and the same is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside,” the Court remarked.

Case Title : Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya

Coram- Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna