JUDGMENT :

1. I.A. No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 3572/2009 is filed by the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi in which the following prayers are claimed:

“(a) Recall the judgment and order dated 14th May 2009, vacate the findings and conclusions recorded therein and dismiss Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2009.

(b) Modify the order dated 4th May 2010 and include the expression “do not” between the words “and” and “relate” so as to read as under the observations, if any, made in the judgment are confined only to the issue involved in the matter and do not relate to the ownership of the land pertaining to minor ports in Puducherry.

(c) Pass such other or further orders as it may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Initially, the instant application was listed for preliminary hearing before a Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan on August 17, 2010 and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed:

“Post on 26th August, 2010 before a bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.”

3. That is how, the instant application is placed before this Court for hearing. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. During the course of hearing of the application, the learned Solicitor General Mr. Gopal Subramanium has, on instructions not pressed the prayer claimed in clause (a) of the application mentioned earlier. Therefore, the said prayer is rejected as not pressed. From the record of the case what is evident is that, the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi had filed I.A. No. 2 of 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2009 and had claimed the following reliefs:

“(a) Recall/Modification its judgment and order dated 14th May 2009 dismissing the Civil Appeal in so far as the observations contained in Para 25 of the judgment.

(b) Pass such other or further orders as it may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. I.A. No. 2 was listed for hearing on 4th May, 2010 before the three Judge Bench of this Court which had decided Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length and the record of the case including the affidavits filed by the parties in Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2009 were considered in detail. Thereafter, the Court had passed the following order:

“Heard learned Solicitor General and respective counsel for the parties.

The observations, if any made in the judgment are confined only to the issues involved in the matter and relate to the ownership of the land pertaining to minor ports in Pondicherry.

With the above-stated observations, all I.As. are disposed of accordingly.”

5. A bare reading of the averments made in the instant application, indicates that, almost all the grounds which are now pleaded in the instant application for claiming the reliefs referred to earlier were stated and mentioned in detail in memorandum of I.A. No. 2 of 2009. The two main grounds, for filing repeated applications in a disposed of matter, urged were (1) in the Writ Petition filed before the Madras High Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is custodian of property of the Central Government situated in State of Puducherry was not impleaded as a party but Ministry of Surface Transport was impleaded as a party (2) the report of the Special Audit Team, submitted pursuant to the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, points out number of infirmities and lacunae in bid award process. The contention that an error had crept in the order dated May 4, 2010 passed by the Three Judge Bench of this Court and therefore, the prayer made in clause (b) should be granted has no substance. The order dated May 4, 2010 was pronounced in the open Court immediately after the arguments had concluded and that too, to the hearing of the learned counsel for the parties who were present in the Court. What