Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA

NOS.

4,

5,

IA

NOS.

6-8,

IA.

NOS.

9-11,

12,

13,

14

AND

15

IN

WRIT

PETITION

(CIVIL)

NO.265

OF

2011

Avishek Goenka

... Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Anr.

... Respondents

J U D G M

E N T

Swatanter

Kumar,

J .

1.

The applications for impleadment and intervention are

allowed subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing

documents on record are also allowed.

2.

I.A. No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and

Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011

under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966

against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e., seeking

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

permission to file application for impleadment and application for

modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated

16^th May, 2012.

3.

The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that

application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as

the writ petition in which the application was filed has already

been disposed of. In regard to the application for modification,

according to the applicants, the petitioner suppressed various

aspects of the matter and misled the court in passing the order

and the same order was therefore, liable to be modified. Dealing

with this contention, the learned Registrar, while referring to the

judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh

Uban and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 269] held that the application, in

fact, was an application for review and not for modification.

Thus, he declined to receive the application and registered the

same in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court.

4.

We hardly find any error of law in the Order of the Registrar

under appeal, but we consider it entirely unnecessary to

deliberate upon this issue in any further detail, since, we have

permitted the applicants to address the Court on merits of the

application. Keeping in view the fact that a number of other

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

applications have been filed for clarification and modification of

the judgment of this Court dated 27^th April, 2012, without

commenting upon the merit or otherwise of the present appeal,

we would deal only with the application for modification or

clarification filed by these applicants along with others.

5.

I.A. No. 15 has been filed by the International Window Film

Association. I.A. No. 4 has been filed on behalf of Vipul Gambhir.

6.

An unnumbered I.A. of 2012 is filed by 3M India Ltd.

Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of the dealers

and distributors of the tinted films.

7.

I.A. No. 3 of 2012, an application on behalf of the petitioner

to appear in person, is allowed.

8.

I.A. No. 7 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of M/s. Garware

Polyester Ltd. I.A. No. 10 of 2012 is an application filed by M/s.

Car Owners and Consumer Association.

9.

Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of

M/s. Gras Impex Pvt. Ltd. All these applications have been filed

by various applicants seeking clarification and/or modification of

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

the judgment of this Court dated 27^th April, 2012 on various

grounds.

10.

The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 11 of 2012 by way of a

common reply to the grounds taken in all these applications and

has also placed certain documents on record. The various

applicants above-named have sought modification/clarification of

the judgment of this Court dated 27^th April, 2012 principally and

with emphasis on the following grounds :

1) That the applicants were not parties to the writ petition and

were not aware of the proceedings before this Court. Thus,

their submissions could not be considered by the Court, hence

the judgment of the Court requires modification.

2) The applicants have placed material and rep