LexKUMARAN SILK TRADE (P) LTD. versus DEVENDRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KUMARAN SILK TRADE (P) LTD. v. DEVENDRA AND ORS. OCTOBER 19, 2006 B [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-0rder dismissing petition for review-Special leave C petition against-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable. Article 136-Special leave petition dismissed as withdrawn-Held, petitioner cannot file special leave petition again by invoking Article 136. The petitioner got a plan sanctioned for construction of a basement, D parking, ground floor and 3 floors. It constructed additional floors 4, 5 and 6 flouting the approved plan, building bye-laws and other relevant enactments. Contempt application was filed. High Court passed an order dated 2.3.2001. Appellant challenged that order by filing appeal before this Court That appeal was dismissed as withdraWn with liberty to approach High Court to file Review E petition. Against the same order of High Court dated 2.3.2001, appeal No.4577 of 2006 is filed. SLP No.17771/2006 is filed seeking permission to challenge the order of High Court dated 7.9.2006 passed in Review application. p SLP No.17773/2006 is filed seeking permission of this Court for G H challenging judgment of High Court striking down amendments brought about to Section I 13A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 in which petitioner was not party on the ground of being affected party. Dismissing the appeal and the petitions, the Court HELD: I.I. SLP No.17771/2006 challenges the order of High Court refusing to review its earlier decision. No petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India could be entertained against such an order. Respondent had argued that petitioner is also seeking to 670 - .. KUMARAN SILK TRADE(P) LTD. v. DEVENDRA 671 challenge the original order by way of the petition for special leave to appeal. A But it is seen that against the original order, a petition for special leave to appeal was filed in this Court and that petition was dismissed. Since the petition for special leave to appeal has already been dismissed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order in this Court again by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. B (673-G; 674-C-D( Shankar Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, ( 1994( 2 SCC 753; Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors., (2004( 13 SCC 675 and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., (2004( 13 sec 677, relied on. c 1.2. CA No.4577/2006 is filed seeking to challenge the order dated 2.3.2001 in Contempt Application. Against the said decision, the petitioner had already filed appeal but had withdrawn the same reserving only liberty in itself to seek a review of the decision of the High Court. In view of this, it is not open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order again in D this Court. Hence the Civil Appeal sought to be filed has only to be rejected. Even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and especially taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with the order on the review petition in the Contempt Application in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. E Therefore, even assuming that the first petition for special leave to appeal against the order refusing to review is maintainable, no relief can be granted to the petitioner therein in view of the finality that would be attained by the order on the petition for review of the order dated 2.3.2001 in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000 in view of refusal of this court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in that case. Thus, the petition for special leave to F appeal and the Appeal are liable to be rejected. (674-E-F; 675-F-H; 676-Af Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr., (2000( 6 SCC 359 and Abbai Ma/igai Partnership Firm & Anr. v. K. Santhakumaran & Ors., (1998) 7 sec 386, referred to. 2. Coming to SLP No.17773 of 2006, in view of conclusion in the first G ...,,- petition for special leave to appeal, and in the Appeal, there is no necessity for or justification in granting any permission to the petitioner for challenging the order of the High Court in the connected writ petitions to which it is not a party. In view ofrefusal of this court to entertain the challenge .i- of the petitioner to the orders against it, the petitioner and the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.