Supreme Court Rules SLPs Not Maintainable Against Rejection of Review Petitions by High Court.
Sandhya Educational Society and another
Versus
Union of India and others
Civil Appeals No. 2927 of 2012 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2429 of 2012 with 0 of 2013 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27753 of 2012. D/d. 2.4.2013.
The Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices H.L. Dattu and J.S. Khehar, heard Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions relating to Sandhya Educational Society versus Union of India. The appeals challenged orders of the Delhi High Court that had dismissed review petitions filed by the appellants.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P.S. Patwalia appeared for the appellants, while Additional Solicitor General H.P. Rawal and others represented the respondents.
The Court considered the maintainability of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution when directed only against orders rejecting review petitions. It relied on earlier judgments including Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata, M.N. Haider v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput. These authorities consistently held that an SLP is not maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition, in light of Order 47, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the case of Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 675 at paragraph 3, this Court has observed as under :
“3. In the case of Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput it has been held by this Court that against an order rejecting an application for review, a special leave petition is not maintainable. this authority is directly on the point in issue. Not only are we bound by it but we are also in agreement with it. Faced with this situation, it is sought to be submitted that this Court in the cases of Green view Tea & Industires v. collector, (2004) 4 SCC 122 and K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 has taken contrary views. We find that in these two cases the question whether a special leave petition was maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition, was not considered at all. In these cases, the question was whether special leave petition was barred by principles of res judicata. It was held that special leave petition was not barred by principles of res judicata. In neither of these cases has reference been made to the abovementioned judgment of this court in Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shilolal Sing Rajput, (1994) 2 SCC 753. In both these cases it has been held that a special leave petition is maintainable only in the context of it not being barred on principles of res judicata. In both these cases the question whether a special leave petition is against an order disposing of a review petition was not considered at all. These cases therefore have no relevance at all.”
The Court emphasized that judicial decorum and discipline require one coordinate bench to follow the rulings of another, and matters cannot be referred to a larger bench on mere assumptions.
In M.N.Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 677 at paragraph 4, this Court has observed as under:
“4. We are unable to accede to this request. In none of these cases has it been considered that once a special leave petition against the main order has been dismissed it would not be open to challenge the main order again. Further, it is settled law (cases of Shanker Motiram nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput and Suseel finance & Leasing Co. and M.N. Haider may be looked at) that a special leave petition is not maintainable against an order in a review petition. These authorities have not been shown or considered by this court whilst passing the above orders. Once SLP is not maintainable no orders can/should be passed thereon except to dismiss the same. In view of the settled position, the abovementioned orders cannot be considered to be a precedent.
Accordingly, the appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 2429 of 2012 was dismissed as not maintainable.
In the connected appeal, which arose from the High Courtโs dismissal of a writ petition in 2004, the Court noted that the appellant had earlier withdrawn an SLP without obtaining permission to refile in case the review petition failed. Referring to Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, the bench held that once an SLP is withdrawn without such liberty, it cannot be filed afresh after the review petition is rejected.
The Court rejected the appellantsโ argument that the issue required consideration by a larger bench, finding the cited precedents distinguishable. It concluded that the civil appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it without examining the merits of the case.
The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
100
