Order

1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 3596 of 1987 dated 18-11-2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants are before us in this appeal.

2. Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, with regard to the maintainability of the special leave petition against the order passed in a review petition, brings to our notice the judgment and order passed by this Court in Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 3722 Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata, (2004) 13 SCC 675 and M.N. Haider v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (2004) 13 SCC 677.

3. Per contra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit, that this Court while observing the maintainability of a special leave petition against the order passed by a writ court in a review petition, has taken into consideration only the provisions under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short) and not Section 141 CPC and therefore requires reconsideration of the issue involved in the instant appeal by a three-Judge Bench of this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. To decide this issue in controversy, it is necessary to have a relook into the decisions of this Court. In Vinod Kapoor case at paras 6 and 11, this Court has observed as under:

“6. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of Respondent 8 that the civil appeals by way of special leave petition were not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for Respondent 8, the appeal against the order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court in Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, WP (C) No. 253 of 1999 is not maintainable as the appellant had earlier challenged the said order before this Court in a special leave petition, but had withdrawn the same and, therefore, the order dated 29-1-2000, WP (C) No. 253 of 1999 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 filed by the appellant had become final and could not be challenged again.

11. Moreover, on the High Court rejecting the application for review of the appellant, the order rejecting the application for review is not appealable by virtue of the principle in Order 47 Rule 7 CPC. In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, (1994) 2 SCC 753 Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata, (2004) 13 SCC 675 and M.N. Haider v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (2004) 13 SCC 677 cited by the learned counsel for Respondent 8, this Court has consistently held that an appeal by way of special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the order rejecting an application for review in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC.”

6. In Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata, (2004) 13 SCC 675, this Court has observed as under:

“3. In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, (1994) 2 SCC 753 it has been held by this Court that against an order rejecting an application for review, a special leave petition is not maintainable. This authority is directly on the point in issue. Not only are we bound by it but we are also in agreement with it. Faced with this situation, it is sought to be submitted that this Court in Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector, (2004) 4 SCC 122 and K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC 37 has taken contrary views. We find that in these two cases the question whether a special leave petition was maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition, was not considered at all. In these cases, the question was whether special leave petition was barred by principle of res judicata. It was held that special leave petition was not barred by principles of res judicata. In neither of these cases has reference been made to