LALA RAM versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 31-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO

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

Judgment (excerpt)

LALA RAM 
I', 
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. 
0Clober31, 1966 
A 
[K. SUBBA RAO, CJ., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI AJl,'D 
B 
R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Rules 2(2) Order XL-Deposit of cash 
security of Rs. 2000 a 
pre<ondition 
for filing 
a review petition in 
respect of an earlier dismissal of writ petition under Art. 32-Such rule 
whether ultra vircs as obstructing the enforcement of a funda1ne11tal right. 
Special leave granted to the petitioner under An. 136 of the Consti-
tution was revoked for non-prosecution and his special leave pe1ition wa .. 
dismissed. 
He filed a pctilioo under Art. 32 claiming that the said revoca-
tion of leave and dismissal of special leave petition was in violation of his 
fundamental right under Art. 14 inasmuch as he had been deprived of 
his right of appeal. The Coun dismissed the writ petition. The peti· 
tioner then filed a petition for review of the order. 
The review ~tion 
was found defective •s the cash security of Rs. 
2,000 as 
requ1red by 
0. XL r. 2(2) of the Su~rcme Coun Rules, 1966 had not been deposited. 
The petitioner urged, rdymg on the decision of this Coun in Prem Chand 
Garg v. Excise Co111,ni~·sio11er U.P. that the said rule was u/lra vJres in-
asmuch as it obstructed his remedy under Art. 32 in defence of a funda-
mental right. 
HELD : The raison d'rtre for the rule in question may be three fold, 
namely. (i) the petitioner has been given a full hearing and his case had 
been disposed of on merit•; (ii) it is a deterrent against frivolous apptfl:a. 
lions; and (iii) it is to safeguard the interes.ts of the respondent who has 
the judgment in his favour. [ 16 BJ 
There is an essential distinction between an application 
for the en-
forcement of a fundamental right and an applicalton to review an order 
made therein. 
The main purpose of a review petition is not 10 enforce 
a fundamental right but to reopen an order vitiated by an error on the 
face of the record or for such other reasons. [ 16 HJ 
Therefore while any onerous condition for enforcing a fundamental 
right may infringe An. 32 itself as held as held in Garg's case, but the 
same thing cannot be said for an application for review of the order made 
therein. [17 A] 
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad 
[1963] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Supp. I S.C.R. 885, distinguished. 
G 
The fact that deposit of security is a pre-condition only in the ~ 
of a review petition does not lead to any 'discrimination because the main 
difference between a review petition and other proceedings is that in the 
case of the 
former this Court is asked to reopen a matter which has 
been closed after bearing the parties. This is a sufficient reason to sustain 
the distinction and it affords a reasonable ne<Us to the objects sought to 
be achieved by the imposition of the pre-rondition. [17 FJ 
H 
The fact that a rule in certain circumstances proves prejudicial to the 
interesu of a petitioner cannot invalidate the rule when admittedly this 
Coun has power to make it under Art. I 45 of the Constitution. [17 DJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
LALA RAM v. SUPREME COURT (Subba Rao, C.J.) 
15 
[Having regard to the circumstances of the case however the Court 
reduced the amount of cash security from Rs. 2,000 to Re. 250 only.] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 8 of 1966. 
Petition for review of this Court's order dated March 24, 
1966 dismissing. Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966. 
• 
Hira Lal Jain, for the petitioner. 
Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-General and R. H. Dhebar, for the 
Attorney-General for India (on notice by the Court). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Subba Rao, C.J. In this petition the question of the consti-
tutional validity of Order XL, r. 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 
1966, hereinafter called the Rules, is raised. 
The petitioner filed a special leave petition against the judgment 
and decree of the High Court of Punjab passed in a Letters Patent 
Appeal. On January 14, 1964, this Court granted special leave. 
Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the amount of security and 
some money as advance towards printing charges. But, as he 
failed to file the list of documents, on April 2, 1965, special leave 
granted to him was rescinded and the special leave petition was 
dismissed for non-prosecution. Then the petitioner filed a writ 
petition, being Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966, in this Court under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution on the ground that the said order of 
revocation of 

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