1. Special leave petition challenging High Court dismissal of a writ petition concerning a project, following the dismissal of several similar petitions. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1877
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Center of Indian Trade Union, anr. - Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I., ors. - Respondents
S.L.P. (C) No. 7734, 1997 (From the judgment, order dated 02.12.96 in WP2456 of 1996 of the High Court of Bombay)
Decided On, 21-04-1997
A party seeking to pursue a legal matter in a representative capacity must obtain leave from the court; failure to obtain such leave may be a sufficient ground for the court to refuse to entertain the petition.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Representative Capacity - Leave of the Court - Necessity of obtaining leave to pursue a matter in a representative capacity - Absence of such leave may be a sufficient ground for the court to decline entertaining a special leave petition. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions relating to the same project had been dismissed by various courts. The current petitioner challenged a High Court order but had not obtained leave to pursue the matter in a representative capacity.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that since no leave was granted by the High Court permitting the petitioner to pursue the matter in a representative capacity, this may be a sufficient reason not to entertain the special leave petition.
Issues: Whether a special leave petition can be entertained when the petitioner has not obtained leave to pursue the matter in a representative capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking to litigate in a representative capacity must obtain the leave of the court; the failure to obtain such leave can be a valid ground for the court to refuse to entertain the petition.
Result: SLP adjourned to 2nd May, 1997.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
representative capacity
- maintainability of petitions (Para 1)
-
representative capacity
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue that prior dismissals are inapplicable as they were not pursued in a representative capacity and seek leave to proceed as such. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that the petitioner did not obtain leave from the High Court to pursue the matter in a representative capacity. (Para 1 )
4. Lack of leave to pursue a matter in a representative capacity may constitute sufficient grounds for the court to refuse to entertain a special leave petition. (Para 1 )
5. Special leave petition adjourned pending the filing of an application for leave to pursue the matter in a representative capacity. (Para 1 )
6. Can a special leave petition be declined if the petitioner failed to obtain leave to pursue the matter in a representative capacity?
Yes, the court indicated that the failure to obtain leave from the High Court to pursue a matter in a representative capacity may be a sufficient reason not to entertain a special leave petition. (Para 1 )
JUDGMENT :
1. We are informed that 12 earlier writ petitions relating to the same project and some of them allegedly involving same or similar questions were filed by different petitioners and have been dismissed by the High Courts and a few of them also by this Court. Sh. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of those earlier matters was in a representative capacity inasmuch as leave of the Court was not obtained to pursue those matters in representative capacity. We find that in the present case also no leave was granted by the High Court permitting the petitioner to pursue the matter in representative capacity. This may, by itself, be a sufficient reason not to entertain this special leave petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an appropriate application seeking leave to pursue the matter in representative capacity would be filed in this Court in order to challenge the High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The SLP is, therefore, adjourned to 2nd May, 1997.
