A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice P.T. Asha while dismissing a review motion filed by the Madras High Court on its administrative side, that the administrative side cannot seek judicial review of its own judgments because doing so would undermine the judicial fiber.
Brief Facts:
The Madras Court, on considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and its rules, had passed an order stating that in order to avail the exemption from paying Court fees in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions contemplated under Order XXXIII and XLIV had to be followed and the exemption in so far, the claim petitions before the Tribunal is concerned, it would be at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. However, taking note of the varying methods of such discretion being exercised this Court had framed certain guidelines after hearing the amicus curiae, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, and the Special Government Pleader. In the present petition, these guidelines were now sought to be reviewed, rather strangely by the High Court on a resolution adopted by the Administrative Committee operating on the administrative side. The situation that was now been placed before this Court was that this Court without being aggrieved over its own order was now being directed by an Administrative Resolution to review its order. The review application was been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the administrative side had failed to show how it was harmed by the published guidelines. Furthermore, the Court stated that the orders were not in any way adverse to the claimants' interests. Hence, the administrative side, according to the court, was only attempting to limit the judicial authority of the court exercising jurisdiction under Clause 36.
The court further stated that, according to Article 215 of the Constitution, the right to correct judgment accrued only when there was an obvious error, and that even that right was only conferred on the High Court on its judicial side. The court further emphasized that as per binding precedents, the decisions made by the Judiciary side were binding on the administrative side and the administrative side could not ignore these orders. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Another 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 727 where the court held that the orders having been passed on the Judicial side of the Court are binding and the administrative side of the Court cannot ignore these orders. While a High Court administrative ruling can be scrutinized, the opposite is not true, said Judge PT Asha. Thus, the Court decided that the administrative side cannot seek a review of its own judgments on the judicial side because doing so would undermine the judicial fiber.
The decision of the Court:
The leave was dismissed accordingly with the aforementioned order.
Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras vs Thirumalai and others
Coram: Ms. Justice P.T. Asha
Case No.: C.M.P.No.1172 of 2023 in Rev. Appl SR.No.4665 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Santhanaraman
Advocate for the Respondent: Not Available
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments