INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 13-08-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, M.M. DUTT

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
.,.. 
• 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & pRS. 
AUGUST 13, 1986 
[V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI ANDM.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-
• 
Art. 226-Writ Petition-Refusal to co_nsider on merits solely on 
ground that a special leave petition had been dismissed by a non-
speaking order-Validity of. 
Art. 136-Special Leave Petition-Grant of-Dismissal by a non-
speaking order-Effect of. 
The appellant's special leave petition against the award of the 
Labour Court dated March I I, 1983 granting r~lief to its employee-
respondent No. 3, was dismissed by a non-speaking order. In the said 
proceedings, respondent No. 3 had also been represented by a counsel. 
Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by preferring a 
writ petition unde~ Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the 
aforesaid award of the Labour Court. The High Court admitted the 
writ petltion and granted interim stay of enforcement of the award. 
The third respondent unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid in-
terim order by a special leave petition. Subsequently when the main 
writ petition came up for final hearing before the Division Bench of the 
· High Court, the third respondent again raised_ a preliminary objection 
as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The High Court upheld the 
preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition holding (i) that 
the dismissal in limine by the Supreme Court of the special leave peti-
tion filed by the appellant against the award by the non-speaking order 
precluded the appellant from challenging the said award before the 
High Court; (ii) that the doctrine of election was applicable to the case 
and the appellant having chosen the remedy of approaching the 
superior court and failed in that attempt, he could not thereafter resort 
to the alternative remedy of approaching the High Court for relief 
"-. 
under Article 226 of the Constitution; and (iii) that the writ jurisdiction 
553 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution being essentially· 
discretionary in nature, it will be a sound exercise of the court's discre-
tion to refuse relief in such a situation. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the High Court for 
disposal on merits, 
HELO: 1.(1) The view taken by the High Court was not right and 
that the High Court should have gone into the merits of the writ petition 
without dismissing it on the preliminary ground. The dismissal by 
Supreme Court of the special leave petition of the appellant by a non-
speaking order did not operate as a bar against the appellant In the 
matter of challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court by 
resort to proceedings before the High Court under Art. 226 of the 
constitution. [560D·E] 
' 
1.(ii) The effect of the-non-speaking order of dismissal of a special 
leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons 
of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that the 
Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special 
leave should be granted. Questions which can be said to have been 
decided by this Court expressly, implicitly or even constructively while 
dismissing the special leave petition cannot, of course, be re-opened in a 
subsequent writ proceeding before the High Court. But neither on the 
principle of re~ judicata nor on any principle of public policy analogous 
thereto, would the order of this court dismissing the special leave peti· 
tion operate to bar the trial of identical issues in a separate proceeding 
namely, the writ proceeding before the High Court merely on the basis 
of an uncertain assumption tbaf the issues must have been decided by 
this Court at least by implication. It is not correct or safe to extend the -~ 
principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata to such an extent so 
as to found it on mere guesswork. [558C-G] 
Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the 
Cochin Port Trust and Another, 11978] 3 SCC 119 and Ahmedabad 
Manufacturing & Calico Printing Company Ltd. v. Workmen and Anr, 
11981] 3 SCR213, relied upon .. 
Wilson v. Colchester Justices, (1985}-Vol. 2-AII England Law 
Reports at page 97, referred to. 
2. It is not the policy of the Supreme Court to entertain special 
• 
INDIAN OIL CORPN LTD v. STATE OF BIHAR 
555 
leave petitions and grant leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.