1. Special leave petition challenging a High Court order striking down the rejection of building development permission based on representations by nearby industrial owners. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., Kuldip Singh, M.H.Kania, JJ.
Bayer India Limited
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Case No., 578 of 1991
Date of Decision, 2/6/91
Parties adversely affected by a judgment may be treated as aggrieved parties and granted leave to appeal even if they were not necessary parties in the original writ petition. Additionally, a review petition may be directed to be heard as a fresh matter to resolve the entire controversy.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Special Leave Petition - Aggrieved Party - Parties who are adversely affected by a judgment may be considered aggrieved parties and granted leave to appeal, even if they were not joined as necessary parties in the original writ petition. (Para 3)
(B) Review Petition - Scope and Ambit - A court may direct that a review petition be entertained and heard as if the matter were heard afresh, extending the scope beyond the normal grounds for review to ensure the entire controversy is determined in light of the submissions of the aggrieved parties. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A municipal corporation rejected applications for property development permission based on representations from owners of chemical factories. The High Court struck down this rejection. The chemical factory owners, who were not parties to the original writ petition, challenged the judgment on the grounds that it adversely affected them.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellants were aggrieved parties. To ensure a comprehensive determination of the controversy, the appellants were granted liberty to file a review petition before the High Court, which would be heard as a fresh matter, and the interim order was extended until the disposal of said petition.
Issues: Whether parties not joined as necessary parties in a writ petition but adversely affected by the judgment can challenge it, and whether a review petition can be directed to be heard as a fresh matter.
Ratio Decidendi: Parties aggrieved by a judgment have the standing to challenge it even if they were not necessary parties to the original proceedings. In the interest of justice, a review petition may be treated as a fresh hearing to resolve the entire controversy between the parties.
Result: Appeal disposed of with liberty to file a review petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend they are aggrieved by the judgment despite not being joined as respondents in the original writ petition. (Para 1 )
3. Parties aggrieved by a judgment may be granted leave to challenge it even if they were not necessary parties in the original proceeding. (Para 3 )
4. A party aggrieved by a judgment may seek review or appeal even if they were not a necessary party to the original writ petition. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal disposed of with liberty to file a review petition to be heard afresh, with directions for expedited disposal and continuation of interim orders. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can a party who was not a necessary party in a writ petition challenge a judgment if they are aggrieved by it?
Yes, the court held that parties can be considered aggrieved by a judgment and granted leave to challenge it even if they were not regarded as necessary parties in the original writ petition. (Para 3 )
7. Can the scope of a review petition be expanded beyond the normal grounds for review?
Yes, the court may direct that a review petition be entertained where the entire controversy is regarded as open, allowing the matter to be heard as if it were heard afresh. (Para 4 )
8. What is the status of interim orders when a matter is remanded for review?
Interim orders may continue to remain in operation until the review petition is decided, though the reviewing court retains the power to vary or vacate such orders upon application. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT
M.H.KANIA, J.
(1) THIS special leave petition is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the Bombay High court in Writ Petition No. 4497 of 1990. The High court allowed the said writ petition and struck down a communication from the Bombay Municipal Corporation, respondent 2 herein, informing the petitioners in the said writ petition, who are arrayed as respondents 3 to 18 before us, that their application for permission to develop the property, namely, the land in question situated at Village Balkum near Thane, was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the government by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village, who are the appellants/petitioners herein that no building construction permission should be granted within certain distance from the said factories. The petitioners in the special leave petition are some of the said chemical factories. They were not joined in the writ petition as respondents and have prayed for leave to file the special leave petition on the ground that the judgment adversely affects them and they are aggrieved by the same.
(2) PERMISSION is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.
(3) WE find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court at the instance of the appellants. The appellants are, however, given liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay High court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period of four weeks from today. In our opinion it is proper that the entire controversy to which the judgment relates should as determined in the light of the submissions which may be made by the appellants.
(4) IN these circumstances, we direct that the review petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the Bombay High court and the appellants will be given a hearing as if the matter were heard afresh as far as they are concerned. It is clarified that the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appellants herein and the respondents.
(5) THE interim order made by this court on 8/01/1991 will continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by the High court. However, it .will be open for the High court to vary or vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties or by any of the interveners here. If the review petition is not filed within the said period of four weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed and all interim orders passed by us shall be deemed to be vacated.
(6) IN our opinion, the review petition deserves to be disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request the High court to dispose of the review petition, if filed as aforestated, within four months from today and in any event, by 30/09/1991.
(7) THE matter shall now be placed before learned chief justice of the Bombay High court for passing appropriate directions.
(8) THE appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs.
