Letters Patent Bench Can't Interfere With Single Bench Decision On Mere Showing Of Some Error Of Fact Or Law : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court's Division Bench, in exercise of their Letters Patent jurisdiction, cannot interfere with a Single Judge's decision in a writ jurisdiction merely because it takes a different view of the case.

“The Letters Patent Bench is not entitled to interfere with the decision of writ Court on mere showing of some error of fact or in law. If the decision rendered by the writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is in furtherance of justice, equity and good conscience and is not against public policy, then the Letters Patent Bench constituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court or similar provisions of the Letters Patent of other High Courts cannot exercise its appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent to interfere with the writ Court's decision. Simply put, the Letters Patent Bench can not interfere with the decision rendered by the writ Court which is otherwise just and reasonable.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

The court clarified that the “Letters Patent Bench can interfere in the matter only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of record. There must exist cogent grounds and such grounds are not projected on some minor mistake in the judgment under challenge.”

Petitioner-R. Saravanan, a former Deputy Registrar of Periyar University, was removed from service in July 2013 following a disciplinary inquiry into allegations that he influenced the grant of affiliation to a college managed by his wife, acquired a house property without the university's permission, and purchased a Santro car without the requisite permission.

Challenging his removal, Saravanan approached the Madras High Court. The Single Judge held that the inquiry findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence and interfered with the punishment. However, the Division Bench allowed the university's appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, reappreciated the evidence and restored the removal order.

Aggrieved, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Division Bench order, the judgment authored by Justice Chandrashekhar observed that the Division Bench erred in interfering with the Single Judge order merely because of the existence of a different view.

According to the Court, a mere difference of opinion does not justify appellate interference with a writ court's reasoned exercise of discretion.

“we have examined the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and find that a well-reasoned decision of the writ Court has been interfered by the Division Bench without any cogent and justifiable reason. The Division Bench of Madras High Court exercised the jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in a matter where no ground for interference was available.”, the court observed.

As a result, the plea was allowed, thereby restoring the Single Judge decision.