1. Challenge to High Court judgment regarding a legal issue consistently decided by multiple High Courts and the Union of India. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 938
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, Krishna Murari, JJ.
The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes & Anr. Etc. - Appellant
Versus
The Ramco Cements Limited Etc. - Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15785-15788 of 2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2020 in WA No. 3403 of 2019 09-03-2020 in WA No. 3413 of 2019 09-03-2020 in WA No. 3414 of 2019 09-03-2020 in WA No. 2812 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Important Points
Points of Law : Consistent view of nine High Courts, including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court and being satisfied about exposition on matters in issue by High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Judicial Review
Headnote
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Special leave - 'Carpo Power Limited - Courts have taken same view- Even decision of High Court of Rajasthan has been affirmed by Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition and connected cases vide order - Considering consistent view of nine High Courts including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court and being satisfied about exposition.
Finding Of the Court :
Courts have taken same view- Even decision of High Court of Rajasthan has been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition and connected cases vide order - Considering consistent view of nine High Courts including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court and being satisfied about exposition on matters in issue by High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions Notably after decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court even Union of India has chosen to act upon said decision by issuing Office Memorandum and directing all States/Union Territories to follow view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Result : Petition Dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran. S, Advocate, Mr. Muthuchharan Sundresh, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Chadha, Advocate, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R.L. Ramani, Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. K. K. Mani, Advocate, Ms. T. Archana, Advocate, Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate, Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran. S, Advocate, Mr. Muthuchharan Sundresh, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Chadha, Advocate, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R.L. Ramani, Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. K. K. Mani, Advocate, Ms. T. Archana, Advocate, Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate, Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenged the legal position adopted by the High Court, seeking a reconsideration of the settled view. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court have consistently upheld the legal position, and the Union of India has issued directions to follow it. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Consistent views across multiple High Courts, affirmed by the Supreme Court and adopted by the Union of India, warrant non-interference in similar matters. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. Special leave petitions and all pending applications are dismissed. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What is the effect of consistent views across multiple High Courts on a legal issue?
When multiple High Courts take a consistent view, and that view is affirmed by the Supreme Court and adopted by the Union of India through official memoranda, the court may decline to interfere with such judgments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
7. How does an Office Memorandum from the Union of India influence the court's decision to reopen a matter?
An Office Memorandum directing States and Union Territories to follow a specific High Court decision indicates the Union's adoption of that view, contributing to the court's decision not to reopen the matter. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 'Carpo Power Limited vs. State of Haryana & Ors., which has already been upheld by this Court by dismissing Special Leave Petition (C) No.20572 of 2018 vide order dated 13 th August, 2018.
3. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has also dealt with the same issue in ' Tata Steel Limited vs. State of Jharkhand ' reported in 2019 SCC online Jharkhand 1255. This judgment, in our opinion, is exhaustive and answers all the points urged before us by the petitioner(s) in the instant special leave petitions.
4. It is brought to our notice that nine High Courts have taken the same view. Even the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan has been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) No.27529 of 2019 and connected cases vide order dated 3 rd February, 2020.Considering the consistent view of nine High Courts, including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court, and being satisfied about the exposition on the matters in issue by the High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view, we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions.
5. Notably, after the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court even the Union of India has chosen to act upon the said decision by issuing Office Memorandum dated 1 st November, 2018 and directing all the States/Union Territories to follow the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
6. Hence, we see no reason to reopen the entire matter. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
7. Consequently, all pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
