TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (5) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment Medical Colleges (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Committee) which was the respondent in the Writ Petition, For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their respective positions in the Writ petition. 3. The question that arose for decision in the Writ petition, was whether the petitioner who belongs to Meda Community and was a resident of Kolar District, could be regarded as belonging to Scheduled Tribes for whom certain seats are reserved for admission to Government Medical Colleges in Mysore State. In the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 1950, issued by the President under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, and amended by the Scheduled Castes and Schedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court [1965] 2 SCR 877, 7. The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the Selection Committee in this review petition, contended that in deciding a case if the court overlooks a binding decision bearing on a material question, then that constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and calls for a review of its judgment or order. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Babu. learned counsel for the respondent in this review petition, contended that even if the court overlooks a binding decision, that constitutes neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor a sufficient cause for reviewing its judgment or order. 9. On the question whether overlooking a binding decision, is a ground for review, there is no r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence there was a ground for granting a review. Their Lordships added: "To hold otherwise would be to multiply litigation, for naturally the aggrieved party would appeal and the error would have to be corrected by the appellate court rather than in the court of first instance." 13. The above decision of the Madras High Court was followed by Wadsworth, J.. in Natesa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar AIR 1941 Mad 918. His Lordship said at p. 920: "When there is a legal position clearly established by a well known authority and by some unfortunate oversight, the Judge has gone palpably wrong by the omission of those concerned to draw his attention to the authority, it may in a proper case, in the light of ILR Mad. 955, AIR 1924....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if they do not come properly prepared they ought not to be allowed upon discovering that they had omitted to bring forward some decided case, to try the case over again upon the strength of their own omission. If the Judge has decided improperly upon a point of law that would be a matter for appeal and not for review". 18. The aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court was followed by Sinha. J. (as he then was), in Dilip Nath Sen y. Certificate Officer, AIR 1962 Cal 346. 19. In Garabini Kamarain v. Surji Narain Singh the Munsiff had granted a review on the ground that the case law relied on by him had been modified by a subsequent decision. Setting aside the order of the Munsiff granting review- this is what Dawson Miller. C. J., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. In C. Venkatappayya v. Ponna-yya, AIR 1933 Mad 631, Waller, J.. in his order of reference to the Full Bench, observed thus: "Speaking for myself I cannot understand how a mistake of law can be apparent on the face of the record. It may be apparent from the contrary decision of a superior court but that is not a part of the record." 23. In this state of divergence of views as to whether overlooking a binding decision amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, the key to the solution of this question is. in our opinion, found in the test laid down by Raja-gopala lyengar. J.. who spoke for the court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, [1964] 5 SCR 174. Without intending to deal with that qu....