Review petitions meant to correct errors, not to substitute a view: Bench

The petitioner M Malarvizhi citing the interim order, which directed the Chennai Corporation Commissioner to de-seal the premises to allow her to reside there but not run any eatery or hotel, sought not to be disturbed from the premises in question. 

A division bench comprising Justice M Venugopal and S Vaidiyanathan, while holding that by any stretch of imagination the interim order cannot be treated as a final one and that court has also asked for a report about the eateries running without any license in Zone-VIII (Anna Nagar area), Corporation of Chennai, said, “This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order under review in order to entertain the present review application.” 

The bench also held “if the Petitioner contends that she is residing in the premises in question as a tenant and that she has got every right to continue running the business or to reside in the said place belonging to the 3rd Respondent (S K Gopalakrishnan), the same cannot be countenanced, as, Writ Petition is not an alternative remedy.” 

“This Court has also directed the petitioner to remove the canteen or tiffin centre within a stipulated time, failing which, the Corporation shall take steps to remove it with the assistance of the jurisdictional Police”, the bench added. 

Also, on noting that an error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one or mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning, the bench held “the power of review is not to be confused with an appeal in disguise, which enables an Appellate Court to correct an erroneous decision by the process of ‘Rehearsing and Corrected’. Review and Appeal cannot go together and re-arguments in a case are not permissible in review.”