RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. versus PRAVINBHAI JASBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 29-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
PRAVINBHAI JASBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 1997 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-Filing of writ peti-
tions-Review or w1it orders-Reviewing Bench differs on the question of 
law/fact-Held, Proper procedure, was to refer the matter to third Judge for 
C his opinion invoking clause 36 of the Letters Patent and not to dismiss the 
review petition under Order 47 Rule 6--Rule 186 of the Gujarat High Cowt 
Rules also does not lead to different conclusions for Section 98(2) of CPC 
and the proviso thereto is not applicable in such a case-However such inap-
plicability of Section 98(2) does not render Rule 186 otiose as Section 98(3) 
D would be applicable-Nature of the review jwisdiction is the same as the main 
judgement-High Courts-Clause 36 Letters Patent of the Bombay High 
Court-Rule 186 of the Gujarat High Court Rulei--Civil Procedure Code, 
1908, Order 47 Rules 6 and 5 and Sections 4(1), 98(2), 98(3), 122 and 129. 
Some agriculturist in the State of Gujarat filed public interest 
E litigation before the High Court seeking di.rections against the industrial 
undertaking discharging polluted effiuents in a canal leading to river 
'Khari' rendering the water of the river unsuitable for agriculture, making 
the agricultural lands infertile and the waters in wells impure. The said 
writ petition was allowed by the High Court. The appellants thereafter filed 
F a Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court on the 
grounds that they have already installed an effluent treatment plant and 
that they were not covered by the order passed by the High Court. The 
appellant thereafter filed a review petition before the High Court in 
accordance with the direction of this Court in the said SLP. On a difference 
of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench hearing the review 
G petition, in applying the procedure under Order 47 Rule 6, of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, the review petition of the appellant was dismissed. Hence 
this appeal against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court 
dismissing the review petition. 
H 
It was contended by the appellant that instead of dismissing the 
636 
• 
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. v. P.J. PATEL 
637 
review petition on difference of opinion between the Judges, it ought to A 
have referred the matter to the third Judge under Clause 36 of the Letters 
Patent of the High Court of Bombay which was applicable to the High 
Court of Gujarat. The appellant further contended that even in view of 
Rule 186 of the Gujarat High Court Rules framed under clause 37 of the 
Letters Patent, the provisions of Section 98 CPC got attracted and either B 
under the proviso to Section 98(2) or under Section 98(3), the reference 
ought to have been made to a third Judge. 
The contention of the respondent was that that Section 98(2) CPC 
was not applicable as the Judges hearing the review petition did not 
disagree on the question of law but on the question of fact. It was further C 
contended that the respondent that resorting to section 98(3) CPC would 
render Rule 186 of the Gujarat High Court Rules otiose and that in case 
Section 98(3) CPC attracted Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, that clause 
could cover only those cases rendered by the High Court in its original 
jurisdi<;tion or appellate jurisdiction. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1 Admittedly the High Court of Gujarat is governed by the 
Letters Patent which earlier applied to its parent High Court of Bombay 
and the original writ petition moved in the High Court by way of public E 
interest litigation was under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 
invoking the original jurisdiction of the High Court. The review petition 
moved by the appellant-company stems from the aforesaid decision in the 
writ petition. The two Judges of the High Court comprising the Division 
Bench which was seized of the review petition, had to decide about the F 
apparent error, if any, discernible from the judgment_ of the earlier 
Division Bench passed in exercise of original jurisdiction of the High 
Court. Consequently, if any difference of opinion arose between the two 
Judges regarding the merit of the review petition, ex facie, clause 36 of the 
Letters Patent got attracted. It is not possible to uphold the respondents' G 
contention that even if clause 36 applied it could not cover review proceed· 
ings arising out of decisions in writ

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