2020 (2) TMI 1657 - SC - Customs

Rectification of mistake - it has been submitted that the correct date in the office report of the disposal of Special Leave Petition (C) CC No. 3881 of 2010 ought to have been 6 April 2009 and not 6 April 2010 - HELD THAT - The office report dated 9 July 2010 which was placed on record when the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on 12 July 2010 suffered from an inadvertent mistake. In the interests of justice we recall the order dated 12 July 2010 and restore the Special Leave Petitions to file. The Review Petitions are accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of office report date in Special Leave Petition and restoration of Special Leave Petitions to file.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., dealt with a matter involving a review petition and restoration of Special Leave Petitions to file. The case originated from an office report filed on 9 July, 2010, indicating the disposal of Special Leave Petition (C) CC No. 3881 of 2010 on 6 April, 2010. However, it was argued that the correct date should have been 6 April, 2009, and the Special Leave Petitions were against an interim order of the High Court of Gujarat. The Union of India, represented by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the Learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that there was an inadvertent error in the office report. The Court acknowledged the merit in the submission and, in the interests of justice, recalled the order dated 12 July, 2010, restoring the Special Leave Petitions to file. Consequently, the Review Petitions were allowed, overturning the previous dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 12 July, 2010.

This judgment underscores the importance of accuracy in court records and the need to rectify inadvertent mistakes promptly to ensure justice is served. The Court's decision to recall the order and restore the Special Leave Petitions to file demonstrates a commitment to upholding procedural fairness and rectifying errors that may impact the parties' rights. The involvement of the Union of India through the Learned Additional Solicitor General highlights the significance of governmental representation in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning administrative errors or oversight. Overall, this case exemplifies the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of legal processes and ensuring that litigants receive a fair opportunity to present their case.