2010 (9) TMI 1055 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the grievance in the petition is redressed and, therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file similar type of petition if occasion so arises?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Review in absence of statutory provisions.
2. Case dismissed/withdrawn - effect on interim relief.
3. Legal malice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Review in Absence of Statutory Provisions:
The judgment underscores the legal principle that a review application is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute or rules. The court referenced several cases including Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, establishing that review is a statutory remedy and cannot be assumed as an inherent power. The court concluded that any order of review without statutory provision is ultra-vires, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

2. Case Dismissed/Withdrawn - Effect on Interim Relief:
The court emphasized that no litigant can benefit from the mere pendency of a case. Interim orders merge into the final order, and if the case is dismissed, the interim order is nullified automatically. This principle was supported by references to cases such as Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P. and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. The court reiterated that any advantage gained from interim orders must be neutralized if the main case lacks merit or is withdrawn. The court also noted that the forum of the writ court should not be used solely for interim relief without proper adjudication of the main issue, citing State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta.

3. Legal Malice:
The judgment defined "legal malice" as an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable cause, often for purposes foreign to those intended by law. The court cited several cases including Addl. Distt. Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla and State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, to explain that legal malice involves the misuse of statutory power. The court found that the Corporation's actions in withdrawing and reissuing orders without due process and without hearing the appellant and the Society constituted legal malice.

Judgment Summary:
The court concluded that the High Court erred in allowing the Corporation to recall its earlier order without statutory authority and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the Society. The subsequent orders passed by the Corporation were deemed unenforceable and void due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles. The court highlighted that the withdrawal of the writ petition by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 nullified all interim and consequential orders, and the appellant should be allowed to continue its business with the Society unaffected by these orders. The appeals were allowed, and the court ordered that the appellant and the Society proceed as if no adverse orders had been passed. This judgment does not affect any independent orders passed by other courts or authorities. No costs were awarded.