Division Bench cannot overturn Single Judge's Article 226 order merely on a different view, Supreme Court holds

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court Division Bench, in exercise of its Letters Patent jurisdiction, cannot interfere with a Single Judge's order under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it takes a different view of the case. Interference is permitted only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record, with cogent grounds shown. In R. Saravanan v. Periyar University, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench's order restoring Saravanan's 2013 dismissal from service, holding that the Division Bench had re-appreciated the evidence without justification, and restored the Single Judge's decision granting him relief. LiveLaw (LiveLaw)

• The Supreme Court has held that a High Court Division Bench, in exercise of its Letters Patent jurisdiction, cannot interfere with a Single Judge's order under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it takes a di
• Interference is permitted only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record, with cogent grounds shown.
• In R.