Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1410
Supreme Court Of India
V. PURUSHOTHAM RAO
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided on : October 10, 2001
Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on the ground of delay as conclusive in subsequent petitions under Article 32.
Headnote:
Article 32 - Discretionary Allotment - The court dismissed the petition under Article 32, citing the earlier dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on the ground of delay as conclusive.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 against the cancellation of discretionary allotment by the Delhi High Court, following the dismissal of the SLPs on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 32, considering the earlier dismissal of the SLPs on the ground of delay as conclusive, and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Challenge to discretionary allotment cancellation, invocation of Article 32 jurisdiction after dismissal of SLPs, delay in filing petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The earlier dismissal of the SLPs on the ground of delay concluded the matter, and the court was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 after the lapse of time.
Final Decision: The petition under Article 32 and the writ petitions were dismissed and rejected, respectively, based on the earlier dismissal of the SLPs and review petitions.
( 1 ) HEARD Mr Bhachawat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
( 2 ) THIS is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against an order of cancellation of the discretionary allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the High Court of Delhi. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier by way of SLPs arising out of CCs Nos. 5762-67 of 1999 which stood dismissed on the ground of delay. The selfsame order of the delhi High Court is assailed now by filing this petition under Article 32.
( 3 ) WE are not inclined to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the constitution of India, as in our view in a matter like this, the earlier order of dismissal of the SLP concludes the matter. If the SLP itself was dismissed on the ground of delay, we see no reason why a petition under Article 32 should be entertained after this length of time. This petition accordingly stands dismissed. WPs (C) Nos. 396 and 111 of 2000
( 4 ) HEARD Mr Mohta and Mr G. L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr P. N. Misra for Respondent 4 and Mr T. L. V. Iyer for the union of India.
( 5 ) HAVING regard to the facts that the selfsame order which has been the subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions under Article 32 was under challenge before this Court in SLPs which stood dismissed and review petitions filed thereafter also stood dismissed, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petitions under Article 32. They accordingly stand rejected.
( 6 ) IA No. 2 in WP No. 396 of 2000 for impleadment stands dismissed as not pressed. CAs Nos. 3100, 3104-05, 3089-90, 3117, 3097, 3102 and 3086 of 2000
( 7 )
( 8 ) JUDGMENT reserved.
( 9 ) REST of the matters be listed as part-heard.
