1. Writ petition under Article 32 seeking mandamus regarding alleged non-compliance with a final order concerning plot allotment and payment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 888
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N.VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 516 of 1994 {Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India}, decided on September 9, 1994
Advocates appeared
Ms Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate (Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate, with her) for the Petitioners.
Important Points
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the directions for plot allotment and dismissed the writ petition under Article 32 as an abuse of process, imposing costs on the petitioners.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Delhi Development Authority - Writ Petition under Article 32 - The court partly allowed the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority, directing the deposit of a specified amount for plot allotment. The writ petition under Article 32 was dismissed as an abuse of process, with costs imposed on the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The litigation involved directions for plot allotment by the Delhi Development Authority. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 contending excess amounts and seeking protection by mandamus.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal, directed the deposit of a specified amount for plot allotment, and dismissed the writ petition under Article 32 as an abuse of process, imposing costs on the petitioners.
Issues: Plot allotment, excess amounts, protection by mandamus, abuse of process of the Court
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the orders and the letter issued directed the appellants to pay excess amounts, and the writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable, being an abuse of the process of the Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition under Article 32 was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended that the authority demanded excess payments contrary to previous court directions and sought protection via mandamus. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that an order passed under Article 136 becomes final, making a subsequent writ petition under Article 32 not maintainable. (Para 1 )
4. A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable to challenge or seek review of a final order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 136. (Para 1 )
6. Is a writ petition under Article 32 maintainable to challenge a final order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 136?
No, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable once an order passed by the Supreme Court exercising power under Article 136 has become final. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. The litigation ultimately ended in Delhi Development Authority v. Surgical Coop. Industrial Estate Ltd. and the matters were disposed of by a Bench of three Judges of this Court with the following directions : (SCC g pp. 23-24, para 4)
"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority insofar as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 50% of Rs 10,756 per square metre the Delhi Development Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, we would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each of these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt of such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them. The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs."
Now the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed containing (sic contending) that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on 1-7-1994 directed the appellants to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this Court exercising power under Article 136, became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, which the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.
2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
For Citation : 1994 (6) SCC 97
