Swatanter Kumar, J. — 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 permission to file application for impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated 16th 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 applications have been filed for clarification and modification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th 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 Ms. Car Owners and Consumer Association.

9. Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of Ms. Gras Impex Pvt. Ltd. All these applications have been filed by various applicants seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th 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 27th 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 reports on record that the use of films or even black films is permissible scientifically and in law.

(3) It is contended that Rule 100(2) uses the expression ‘maintained’ which implies that safety glasses, including the wind screen, can be maintained with requisite VLT percentage even by use of black films.

(4) Lastly, it is contended that para 27 of the judgment needs modification by substituting the words ‘use of black films of any VLT percentage’ by the words ‘use of black films of impermissible VLT per