· MR. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.
v
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 and 136. Order passed under
Article 136 attaining finality-Writ filed subsequent thereta-Held not main-
tainable.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners subsequent to the
order passed by this Court under Article 136 became final.
Dismissing the petition, this Court
A
B
c
HELD : The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
is not maintainable. It is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so D
dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, wh~ch the Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners. (338-D]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 516 of
1994.
.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The litigation ultimately ended in Civil Appeal Nos. 668-669of1988
dated August, 16, 1993 and the matters were disposed of by a Bench of
three Judges of this Court with the following directions :
E
F
"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of Delhi Development
Authority in so far as these ten members are concerned and direct G
that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated
at 5% of Rs. 19,759. per square meter the Delhi Development
Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in
question. As the total amount to be paid would depend on the
area of the plot, would direct the Delhi Development Authority to H
337
~38
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
communicate the amount which each 9f these ten members will be
· required to pay at the above rate and on receipt to such com-
munication the said ten members will make the payment within
one such month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim
the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time
will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them.
The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to
costs."
Now the writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed
contend, that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on July
C
1, 1994 directing the appellants, to pay excess amounts and that, therefore,
they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion. The order passed by this Court exercising power under Article· 136,
· became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not
maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court
and so dismissed with costs of rupees. thirty thousand, which the Supreme
D Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
/
Petition dismissed.
-
Lex