IMPORTANT POINT
Petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution can not be entertained against order of High Court refusing to review its earlier order.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. -

SLP (C) No 17771 of 2006 (CC No. 7240 of 2006)

1. This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to challenge the order of the High Court dated 7.9.2006 passed in Review Application No. 84 of 2005 and Review Sub-Application No. 366 of 2001 in Writ Appeal No.1171 of 2000. An attempt has been made to indicate in the petition for special leave to appeal that the order dated 3.8.2000 rendered in Writ Appeal No.1171 of 2000 is also being appealed from.

Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2006 (D. No. 24316 of 2006)

2. This appeal purports to challenge the order of the High Court dated 2.3.2001 passed in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000. The application is filed with a delay of 1970 days in filing it. It may be noted that challenging the very same order the appellant had filed Civil Appeal No.1837 of 2001. That appeal was withdrawn by the appellant herein. The order dated 9.11.2001 reads as under:

"Learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks leave of the Court to withdraw this appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court for appropriate relief by way of a Review Petition.

It is made clear that the order made by us on 23.3.2001 to maintain status quo, shall continue for a period of one week from today.

What is attempted now is to file yet another appeal against the very same order of the High Court invoking Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

SLP (C) No. 17773 of 2006 (CC No. 7585 of 2006)

3. This petition for Special Leave to Appeal is sought to be filed by seeking the permission of this Court by way of I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for challenging the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos.18898 of 2000 and other connected matters striking down the amendments brought about to Section 113A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by Amending Acts 31/2000, 17/2001 and 7/2002 and issuing other consequential and incidental directions. The petitioner was not a party to any of the writ petitions but submits that the petitioner is affected by the decision rendered by the High Court in the writ petitions and the possible rights the petitioner may have under the amended provision stood annihilated by the decision.

4. The first of the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, as indicated, challenges the order of the High Court refusing to review its earlier decision. No petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India could be entertained against such an order. It has been so held by this Court in Shankar Motiram Nale vs. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994 (2) SCC 753). The said decision has been followed by another Bench of which one of us (H.K. Sema, J.) was a party in Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. vs. M. Lata and others (2004 (13) SCC 675) wherein this Court held that a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dismissing a petition for review is not maintainable. This Court distinguished two cases cited in which the question itself had not been adverted to or decided. Another Bench of this Court in M.N. Haider and others vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others (2004 (13) SCC 677) again considered the question and held that a petition for special leave to appeal is not maintainable. This Court also held that once a petition for special leave to appeal is found not maintainable, no order can or should be passed thereon except an order of dismissal of the same.

5. With respect, we see no reason to depart from the position adopted in these decisions. All that was argued was that the petitioner is also seeking to challenge the original order by way of the petition for special leave to appeal. But it is seen that against the original order dated 3.8.2000 a petition for special leave to appeal, No.5333 of 2001 was filed in this Court and that petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2001 also taking into account the conduct of the petitioner in this Court.