STATE OF KERALA Vs. BINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The appeal is filed by the State and its officials, who were respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No. 18853 of 2010, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.11.2017 whereby, the learned single Judge quashed Exhibits P7 and P8 orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 3.5.2010 and 3.5.2010 respectively. The subject issue relates to illegal quarrying conducted by the husband of the writ petitioner/first respondent ad-measuring 13125 cubic metres. In fact orders were passed by the Additional Tahsildar quantifying the value of the rubbles removed converting the cubic metre into metric tonnes and thereupon a mistake has occurred in the calculation. It was accordingly that the clerical error was identified and Exhibit P7 order was passed and the demand was raised as per Exhibit P8 amounting to Rs. 5,25,000/- towards royalty and Rs. 85,000/- towards price of the rubbles and thereupon directed the writ petitioner to remit the balance amount of Rs. 5,09,906.00 after adjusting an amount of Rs. 97,225/- paid by the writ petitioner in accordance with the mistaken calculation.

(2.) The legality of the impugned orders were challenged by the writ petitioner stating that there was no power vested with the statutory authority to review the earlier order passed and therefore, the orders are bad, arbitrary and illegal and liable to be interfered with by the writ court. The writ court, after taking into account the said aspects following the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 3 KLT 986 (SC)], held that a quasi judicial authority or judicial authority cannot review its own order without any power conferred under a statute.

(3.) The legality and correctness of the said judgment is challenged by the Government basically contending that the petitioner's husband who was the offender in a land conservancy case has extracted 13125 cubic metres of rock from the Government poramboke land and therefore, he or his legal heir is liable to pay the compensation. It is also pointed out that the quantity of rock extracted as shown in Exhibit P1 order is 13125 cubic metres. However, when converting the unit of volume of rock from cubic metre to metric tonnes a clerical mistake crept in and instead of 32812.50 metric tonnes, it was shown as 5215 metric tonnes in Exhibit P1 order. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the appellants is that mere correction of a clerical error will not amount to review and there was no review of the quantity of the rock illegally extracted by the husband of the writ petitioner but however with the findings in respect to quantity of the rock illegally extracted the quantity when converted to metric tonnes from cubic metre was mistakenly shown as 5250 and therefore, there was no material alteration of the finding with respect to the quantity extracted. The basic contention, therefore, advanced by the appellants is that there was no review of the order as such but a clerical mistake in the matter of conversion was corrected by the Tahsildar, which is permissible under law. Therefore, the submission advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (supra) in regard to the finding rendered that a review cannot be done without the power conferred on an authority, may not apply at all in this case. It was also pointed out that if the error was not corrected by the Tahsildar, on his own motion, there would have been substantial damages caused to the State exchequer consequent to the calculation mistake made by the officer concerned.