LexVINOD KAPOOR versus STATE OF GOA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1089 VINOD KAPOOR v. STATE OF GOA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8643-8644 of 2003) OCTOBER 03, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Maintainability of appeal by way of Special Leave under Article 136 against A B an order of the High Court after an earlier Special Leave C Petition against the same order had been withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh Special Leave Petition - Held: Not maintainable - As the appellant had withdrawn the Special Leave to Appeal against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court with permission to pursue his remedy by way of D review instead and had not taken the liberty from the Supreme Court to challenge the order dated 29.01.2000 afresh by way of special leave in case he did not get relief in the review application, he was precluded from challenging the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court by way of fresh Special E Leave to Appeal under Article 136. Abhishek Malviya v. Additional Welfare Commissioner and Another (2008) 3 SCC 108 - relied on. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another v. Netaji F Cricket Club and Others (2005) 4 SCC 741: 2005 (1) SCR 173; Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kera/a and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359: 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 and Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Another (2011) 4 sec 602: 2011 (3) scR 7 46- cited. G Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Maintainability of appeal by way of Special Leave under Article 136 against the order of the High Court rejecting an application for review 1089 H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20121 8 S.C.R. A of the appellant - Held: Not maintainable - The order rejecting the application for review is not appealable by virtue· of the principle in Order XL VII, Rule 7 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XL VII, r. 7. B Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753; Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Others (2004) 13 SCC 675 and M.N. Haider and Others v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others (2004) 13 SCC 677 - relied on. c D E F G H Case Law Reference: (2008) 3 sec 108 relied on Para 5, 9, 11 (1994) 2 sec 753 relied on Para 5, 10 (2004) 13 sec 675 relied on Para 5 (2004) 13 sec 677 relied on Para 5 2005 (1) SCR 173 cited Para 6 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 cited Para 6 2011 (3) SCR 746 cited Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8643-8644 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 6.12.2000 and 29.1.2000 of the High Court of Bombay at Panaji-Goa in Civil Review Petition No. 1712000 and Civil Writ Petition No. 253/ 1999. Vinod Kapoor (In-Person). Mukul Rohatgi, A.V. Rangam, A. Subhashini, Kiran Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad. Shreekant N. Terdal, Hari Shankar K, Ninad Laud, Vikas Singh Jangra, Swati Mantri for the Respondents. VINOD KAPOOR v. STATE OF GOA & ORS. 1091 The Order of the Court was delivered by A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the orders of the Bombay High Court at Goa dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 and Civil Review Petition No. 17 of 2000. A B 2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no. 8 was served with a show-cause notice dated 26.11.1996 by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (for short 'the Authority'). In the show-cause notice, it was alleged that the respondent no. 8 had constructed a residential bungalow on a C land in Survey No.250/12 without the prior permission of the Authority as required under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). It was also alleged in the show-cause notice that there was no proper access road to the property as required under the Act and that the D construction was within a distance of 100 Mtrs. from Zuari river and was in breach of the Coastal Regulation Zone notificatlbn issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. By the show-cause notice, the respondent no.8 was asked to show- cause why action should not be initiated under Section 52 of E the Act for demolition of the construction. By a communication dated 10.12.1996, the Town Planner of the Authority also informed the Chief Officer, Panaji Municipal Council, that the respondent no. 8 had obtained permission from the Municipal Council to make the construction on the land in Survey No. 250/ F 12, Village Taleig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.