Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1750
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. PATTANAIK, RUMA PAL, JJ.
Purushotham Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2000
Decided On : 10-10-2001
Important Points
Subject
Jurisdiction - Constitutional Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Dismissal of Petition - Article 32 - The court declined to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, citing the earlier dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on the ground of delay. The court concluded that the dismissal of the SLPs concluded the matter and therefore dismissed the petition under Article 32.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the cancellation of a discretionary allotment made in their favor by the High Court of Delhi. The petitioner had previously approached the Court through SLPs arising out of certain cases, which were dismissed due to delay. The same order of the Delhi High Court was challenged in the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 32, stating that the earlier dismissal of the SLPs concluded the matter. It also refused to entertain the writ petitions under Article 32, as the same order had been challenged in the dismissed SLPs and subsequent review petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should entertain a petition under Article 32 after the dismissal of SLPs on the ground of delay, which challenged the same order that was the subject of the current petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the earlier dismissal of the SLPs and review petitions challenging the same order. It concluded that the dismissal of the SLPs on the ground of delay precluded the entertainment of the petition under Article 32.
Final Decision: The petition under Article 32 was dismissed, and the writ petitions under Article 32 were rejected. An application for impleadment was also dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGMENT :
G.B. PATTANAIK, J.
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 C.C. 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. W.P. (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. I.A. No. 2 in W.P. No. 396 of 2000 for impleadment stands dismissed as not pressed.
C.A. Nos. 3100, 3104-3105, 3089-3090, 3117, 3097, 3102 and 3086 of 2000
7. Heard.
8. Judgment reserved.
9. Rest of the matters be listed as part-heard.
