SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Gyan Sudha Misra and P.C. Ghose, JJ.
JAL MAHAL RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Petitioner
Versus
K.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS – Respondents
SLPs (C) No. 17701 of 2012 with Nos. 19239-40, 22467, 22820 and 24341 of 2012, Decided on : 05-02-2014
Withdrawal of Special Leave Petitions - Change of Stand by State of Rajasthan - The court permitted the State of Rajasthan to withdraw its special leave petitions but expressed reservations about allowing the learned Senior Counsel to take an opposite stand and advance arguments exactly opposite to what was submitted earlier.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Rajasthan filed an application to withdraw special leave petitions after the conclusion of arguments, seeking permission to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the special leave petitions as withdrawn but expressed reservations about allowing the State to take a diametrically opposite stand after withdrawal.
Issues: Withdrawal of special leave petitions, change of stand by the State of Rajasthan, permission to advance arguments as a respondent in other matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the State was permitted to withdraw the petitions, it expressed reservations about allowing a change of stand and advancing arguments exactly opposite to the earlier submissions.
Final Decision: The special leave petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, and the State was permitted to advance submissions as a respondent in other matters within a period of two weeks, subject to acceptance.
Order
1. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. Written submissions may be filed by the parties within two weeks.
2. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Jaydeep Gupta, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, which was earlier represented by the learned Attorney General, had already advanced and concluded his arguments. However, the petitioner State has now filed an application for withdrawal of the special leave petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan and in view of the averments made therein, has sought permission to withdraw these petitions.
3. We see no reason to decline this request, as it is essentially the prerogative of the party to press or withdraw his petition(s) and, therefore, this Court would not come in the way of permitting the State of Rajasthan to withdraw these petitions. The special leave petitions, therefore, are dismissed as withdrawn in view of the request made.
4. However, in spite of withdrawal of the special leave petitions, if the petitioner State is taking a diametrically opposite stand which it had taken before the High Court as also before this Court when the arguments were concluded, we surely have reservations in permitting the learned Senior Counsel to take an opposite stand now and advance arguments exactly the opposite of what was submitted in the High Court as also before this Court through the earlier counsel being the Attorney General.
5. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the State is a respondent in other special leave petitions also which have been preferred by the other petitioners and, therefore, as a respondent therein, they are eligible to advance their arguments.
6. There is no doubt that the impleaded respondent may advance his arguments before the Court as he has been impleaded as a party-respondent but under the garb of advancing arguments a stand which was taken before the High Court earlier is changed at the stage of special leave petition, cannot be permitted especially when the counsel, as already stated, has withdrawn the special leave petitions preferred by the State.
He may, however, advance submissions as a respondent in other matters, which he is at liberty to make within a period of two weeks, which however, shall be subject to its acceptance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.