ORDER

1. HEARD MR G.L. SANGHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL AT GREAT LENGTH.

2. THIS WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED CHALLENGING THE VIRES OF ORDER 21 RULE 15(1)(E) OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966 ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER ARTICLE 145 OF THE CONSTITUTION THIS COURT CAN ONLY FRAME RULES EMPOWERING THIS COURT TO DISMISS AN APPEAL SUMMARILY IN CASES ONLY WHEN THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS OR BROUGHT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DELAY. IT IS CONTENDED THAT RULE 15 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT SUMMARY DISPOSAL IS TO BE ONLY WHEN THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS OR BROUGHT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAUSING DELAY. IT IS SUBMITTED THEREFORE THAT THE RULE IS ULTRA VIRES INASMUCH AS IT VESTS IN THIS COURT A POWER TO SUMMARILY DISMISS EVEN WHERE AN APPEAL IS NOT FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS OR BROUGHT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DELAY.

3. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS. THIS COURT IS THE FINAL COURT. AGAINST ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT THERE IS NO FURTHER APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THIS COURT NEED NOT GIVE ANY REASONS WHILE DISPOSING OF A MATTER. THUS, WHEN RULE 15 PROVIDES FOR SUMMARY DISPOSAL, IT NEED NOT STATE THAT SUCH SUMMARY DISPOSAL CAN ONLY BE WHERE THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPEAL IS VEXATIOUS OR FRIVOLOUS OR THAT IT HAS BEEN FILED MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAUSING DELAY. MERELY BECAUSE THE RULE AND/OR ORDER OF THE COURT DOES NOT USE THE WORDS "VEXATIOUS", "FRIVOLOUS" OR "FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAUSING DELAY" DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPEALS CAN BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE APPEALS ARE NOT VEXATIOUS OR FRIVOLOUS OR FILED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAUSING DELAY. THIS COURT CONSIDERS EACH CASE ON ITS MERITS. WITHOUT COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MATTER IS VEXATIOUS OR FRIVOLOUS AND/OR WAS BROUGHT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAUSING DELAY, NO APPEAL IS SUMMARILY REJECTED. IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT BEFORE DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL SUMMARILY, THE JUDGES HAVE READ THE APPEAL IN DETAIL. THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. THEREAFTER REASONABLE HEARING IS GRANTED TO THE COUNSEL. IT IS ONLY AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE APPEAL, THE SAME IS DISMISSED SUMMARILY. EVEN THEREAFTER, A REMEDY OF REVIEW IS AVAILABLE. AT THE TIME OF REVIEW, THIS COURT AGAIN CONSIDERS THE MATTER.

4. ORDER 21 RULE 15(1)(E) HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THE LAST OVER 40 YEARS. IT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME AND CANNOT-BE SET ASIDE AT THIS STAGE AT THE BEHEST OF A PARTY LIKE THE PETITIONER WHO IS A DISGRUNTLED LITIGANT. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FILED A. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WHICH WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED. THE REVIEW FILED BY HIM HAS ALSO BEEN DISMISSED. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT HE HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION.

5. WE, THUS, SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS PETITION. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.