1. Miscellaneous application filed in a disposed-of writ petition seeking protection against threats arising from subsequent events in related litigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1167
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Jain – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR. – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 39665 of 2024 In M.A.D.No. 14381 of 2024 In M.A.No. 714 of 2022 In W.P.(C) 429 of 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
Miscellaneous applications cannot be entertained in disposed proceedings unless for clerical errors or rare cases where executory orders become impossible to implement.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Miscellaneous applications in disposed proceedings - The court clarified that miscellaneous applications cannot be entertained post-disposal unless for clerical errors or rare cases where executory orders become impossible to implement due to subsequent events. (Paras 11-17)
(B) The court emphasized the finality of proceedings and the need for clarity on the maintainability of such applications, warning against confusion and chaos in legal processes. (Paras 12-15)
(C) The court directed that if the applicant has apprehensions of harm, he may file a writ petition under Article 226 for appropriate relief. (Paras 20-21)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Applicant seeks protection from threats by the contemnor following the dismissal of an appeal in a contempt proceeding. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 )
3. Filing miscellaneous applications in disposed-of proceedings to address fresh causes of action is impermissible as the court becomes functus officio. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Post-disposal miscellaneous applications are maintainable only for clerical errors or where executory orders become impossible to implement due to subsequent developments. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Miscellaneous application rejected with liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the territorial High Court under Article 226. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Is a miscellaneous application maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings based on subsequent events?
No. Once proceedings are terminated by final disposal, the court has no jurisdiction to re-open them via a miscellaneous application for a matter providing a fresh cause of action, as doing so would undermine the finality of proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Under what circumstances can a miscellaneous application be entertained after a matter has been disposed of?
Such applications are maintainable only for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, or in rare cases where the order passed is executory in nature and the directions have become impossible to implement because of subsequent events or developments. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What is the appropriate legal remedy if a party apprehends harm following the disposal of a writ petition?
The aggrieved party may file a fresh writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek appropriate relief, such as protection. (Para 20 , 23 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Application seeking permission to appear and argue-in-person is allowed.
3. This miscellaneous application is at the instance of the original petitioner of Writ Petition (Civil) No.429 of 2020.
4. In this miscellaneous application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“A. To Direct the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra; The S.S.P., Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the pendency of Civil appeal number 126/2021 pending before the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra on 29th March,2022 and subsequent dates; and
B. pass such a order and directions as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
5. We take notice of the fact that the Writ Petition (Civil) No.429/2020 came to be disposed of vide order dated 6-8-2021 in the following terms:-
"The petitioner, who appears in person, seeks a two-fold direction under Article 32 of the Constitution:
(i) A direction to the first respondent to devise a mechanism for enforcing court orders; and
(ii) A direction to the District Judge to dispose of the proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner for breach of the order which enures to his benefit,
2. The wider relief which has been sought by the petitioner in (i) above cannot be entertained in these proceedings under Article 32, However, insofar as the specific grievance of the petitioner is concerned, we direct that the application, Contempt Application No 26 of 2016, which has been filed by him complaining of a breach of the order enuring to his benefit may be disposed of expeditiously, if it has not already been disposed of, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. We clarify that we have made no observations on the merits of the issues which are sought to be raised in the contempt proceedings.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."
6. Thus, while disposing of the main matter, this Court observed that in so far as the wider relief which was prayed for by the applicant – herein, could not have been granted in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court proceeded to issue directions to the District Judge to dispose of the contempt application No.26/2016 filed by the applicant herein expeditiously.
7. We have heard Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain appearing in-person.
8. Dr. Jain brought to our notice that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, referred to above, his contempt application No.26/2016 was heard and the same was allowed. Against such order, the contemnor went in appeal and his appeal is also dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2024.
9. His grievance is that despite all the aforestated developments, he has not been able to achieve any positive result in his litigation,
10. Today, he apprehends threat to himself and his family members at the end of the contemnor.
11. This Miscellaneous Application on the face of it is not maintainable in law.
12. It is high time that this Court says something on the practice of the litigants filing miscellaneous applications in disposed of proceedings and that too after a period of 5 years, 7 years, 10 years.
13. These miscellaneous applications which are being filed on daily basis have something to do with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings.
14. No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.
15. In fact, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application as no proceedings could be said to be pending before it. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition be it under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle
