Failure to furnish adequate instructions during writ proceedings justifies costs despite successful recall of order in review.

The appellant’s father, an employee of the dissolved Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) absorbed into the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), died in harness on 24.12.2020.

The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 20.01.2021, but no final decision was communicated despite policy shifts in 2022 and 2023.

The appellant filed WPS No. 3162/2025, wherein the Single Bench directed the State to consider his claim within 90 days (order dated 06.05.2025).

However, the CIDC filed Review Petition No. 176/2025, claiming the appellant's application had previously been rejected.

On 25.07.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the review and recalled the original order.

The appellant challenged this recall order via the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in exercising review jurisdiction to recall the order dated 06.05.2025 based on facts not presented during the initial writ proceedings.

2. Whether the respondent-Corporation’s failure to provide proper instructions during the initial hearing warrants legal consequence or reversal of the review order.

The court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, noting the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in *Lily Thomas v. Union of India* and *Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra*, which establish that review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

The court also applied the principle of professional diligence and the duty of statutory bodies to assist the court with "due diligence" and "fairness" during judicial proceedings.

The Court observed that while the CIDC was represented during the initial writ hearing, it failed to provide the Court with instructions or the alleged prior rejection order, leading to the first favorable order for the appellant.

The Court rejected CIDC's excuse that they appeared only on "advance copy," holding that it was the Corporation’s obligation to either obtain instructions or seek an adjournment.

Regarding the review order, the Court found that the Single Judge’s decision to restore the writ petition to its original number was not "wholly without jurisdiction" and did not require interference in an intra-court appeal.

However, the Court severely criticized the CIDC's "casual approach," noting that their lack of diligence caused unnecessary litigation, hardship to the appellant, and a waste of judicial time, necessitating the imposition of exemplary costs.

However, due to the CIDC’s negligent conduct and failure to assist the Writ Court, the Court saddled Respondent No. 2 (CIDC) with costs of ₹50,000 to be paid to the appellant within three weeks.

The appeal was disposed of with the direction that failure to pay would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.