9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether unconditional withdrawal of the leave petition would amount to its dismissal. 2. Impact of such withdrawal on the petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution. Summary: Issue 1: Whether unconditional withdrawal of the leave petition would amount to its dismissal. The appellant, Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., filed a petition for special leave to appeal u/Article 136 of the Constitution, which was later withdrawn. The High Court equated this withdrawal with dismissal, relying on Vasant Vithal Palse and Ors. v. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Anr. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the order permitting withdrawal should be read as it is and does not imply dismissal. The Court emphasized that an order allowing withdrawal cannot be equated with a dismissal unless explicitly stated. The Court cited Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr., where a non-speaking order of dismissal did not operate as res judicata, and similarly, an order permitting withdrawal cannot operate as such. The Court also referenced Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand & Anr., where withdrawal of an application did not equate to refusal of approval. Issue 2: Impact of such withdrawal on the petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition u/Article 226 in limine, based on the unconditional withdrawal of the leave petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was incorrect. The Court noted that a writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course and must be based on a failure of justice. The Court referenced Daryao & Ors. v. The State of U.P. & Ors., where withdrawal of a writ petition did not constitute a bar of res judicata. The Court also distinguished the present case from Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat and Vasant Vithal Palse's case, noting the absence of concealment of facts and the difference in circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not exercise proper discretion in dismissing the writ petition solely based on the withdrawal of the leave petition. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits. There was no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
|
