J
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A
v.
MANISHA DWIVEDI AND ANR.
AUGUST 31, 2001
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 1950 ~
Article 136---Petition for special leave to appeal-Filed against
interlocutory order passed in a writ petition pending before High Court- C
Held, Supreme Court will not normally exercise its Jurisdiction under Article
136 in respect of an interlocutory order except in spe.cial circumstances to
prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of Court-No speciai
circumstances warranting interference found-Besides there is unexplained
delay of more than one year in filing the petition-Petition dismissed-- D
lnterlocutmJ' order.
Delay/Latches :
Petition for special leave to file appeal in Supreme Court-There being
delay of more than one year in filing 1he petition-Petition not entertained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (C)
Nos. 11293-11294 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999.
WITH
I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 200 !.
A vadh Behari Rohatgi, Ashok K. Srivastava and Prakash K. Singh for
the Peritioners.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Manik Karttnjawala, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini
Gore, Ankur Chawla and Hrishikesh Baruah for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
475
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court
dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 (in fact it is found to be 12.1.2001). Notice
was issued on the appeal leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed
IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not
brought to the notice of the Court.
B
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits
for two reasons; first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the
documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was
passed on 12.1.2001; ifthat were to be correct there was no dealy in filing
C the special petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out
that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and
on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical
error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year which remains unexplained
and, therefore, the special leave petitions cannot be entertained. Secondly,
D the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and the Writ Petition is still
pending. This Court will not normally execrise its jursidiction under Article
136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special
circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the
Court. We do not find any special circumstances warranting our intereferece
in this case.
E
Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions
are dismissed accordingly.
R.P.
Petitions dismissed and IA 's allowed.
Lex