'·
•
A
482
B
c
D
E
G
H
AjlDUL REHMAN ANTULAY
v.
'
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
[AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.] .
April 17, 1984
~
.·
#
.
·constitution ·of India Ari. 1'41--i>uty of all courts to follow d~cision of
the Supreme Court;
S~preme Court Ruf es-Whether Supreme Court cafl. entertain writ petition
aiafnst its own .ofder anti i;tdgmfnt.
·
ORJGIN,l.L
& CRIMINAL
APPELLATE . JURISDICTION : Writ
Petition (Cr!) No. 708 of !934.
·
'(Under Article· 32 of the Constitution of India)
And
Spe~ial Leave Petitiob (Cr!) Nos. 1949·50 of 1984
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16,3.84 of
the Bombay High Court in Speciat'Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83)
Mtirli Bhandare;Govindtfas, Ms-. Bina Gupta, H.R: Bhardwaj and
PP. Singh for the petitioner.
·
'
R.am Jethma/ani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for
•
the _respondents.
The Order, 'of the Court was delivered by
AMARE'WRA NATH SEN, J. There· is' no merit in this Writ
Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
,
In inY view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the
order and judgment passed by this Court ·as nullity or otherwise
incorrect ·cannot be entertained. "t wish to make it cleat that the
·dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the
petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review
petition or to file any other application which be may be entitle<!
in law to file.
. .
,.. .
'
.,., .A..
. ,.,_
' ')r ' "
•
. {
•
A.R. ANT1JLAY v. UNION (Desai, J.)
483
DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the. conclusion recorded by
A
my br9ther.
The learned Judge in deciding the S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 1149-50/
1984 has followed the decision of this Court: The learned Judge
· was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of th.e learned
Judge to follow the decision of this Court ·which is binding on ·
B
him.·
Special 'leave petitions are dismissed.
H.S.K.
Petitions dismissed.
•
c
•
•
Lex