1. Application to recall a criminal case order following the dismissal of a previous application for the same relief. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (D) THROUGH LRS. – RESPONDENTS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2021 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO. 1 of 2020
Decided on : 05-02-2021
Advocates Appeared ;
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because order might not be in favour of applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat Court by seeking a Bench of its choice.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 137 – Recall of order – Earlier IA for recalling of order was dismissed and at that time also applicant-petitioner in person was heard – Present application also deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed – Merely because order might not be in favour of applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal – A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Result : Application dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Request for judicial recusal based on prior unfavorable orders and a plea to recall a previous order. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Recusal is not granted for prior unfavorable orders; successive applications for the same relief are not maintainable. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Litigants cannot seek recusal based on previous adverse rulings or file multiple applications for the same relief. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Application dismissed and Registry directed to refuse further miscellaneous applications on the same subject matter. (Para 4 )
6. Does a prior unfavorable order by a judge constitute valid grounds for recusal?
No, a judge's previous order against a litigant is not a valid ground for recusal, as litigants cannot be allowed to choose their own Bench. (Para 2 )
7. Is a subsequent application for the same relief maintainable if a prior application was dismissed?
No, a second application seeking the same relief as one already dismissed by the court is not maintainable. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner herein to recall the order passed by this Court dated 03.09.2020 passed in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020.
2. We have heard the applicant-petitioner in person at length. When we pointed out to the applicant-petitioner in person that as earlier another application filed by her for the very same relief as in the present application was dismissed by this Court, the second application for the same relief could not be maintainable, the applicant-petitioner in person submitted that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y.Chandrachud, J.) should recuse himself from hearing the present application. We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant-petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected.
3. Now so far as the present application on merits is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier one other application was filed by the applicant-petitioner in person for the very relief, i.e., to recall order dated 03.09.2020 passed by this Court in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020 and the same came to be lodged by the Registrar and the application challenging the order of the Registrar lodging the application for recall of the order dated 03.09.2020 was dismissed. That thereafter, once again, the applicant-petitioner in person has preferred the present application for the very relief, i.e., for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 which shall not be maintainable. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that order dated 03.09.2020 was pronounced after hearing the applicant. As observed hereinabove, earlier IA for recalling of order dated 03.09.2020 was dismissed and at that time also the applicant-petitioner in person was also heard.
4. In view of the above, the present application also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is observed that the Registry shall not accept any further miscellaneous application on the subject matter of order dated 03.09.2020 or the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in IA No. 101770 of 2020 or in the present order.
