2012 (10) TMI 680 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of review petition - Judgment and decree passed by the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP - Held that - Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal on any party but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. Article commences with a non-obstante clause the words are of over-riding effect and clearly indicate the intention of the framers of the Constitution that it is a special jurisdiction and residuary power unfettered by any statute or other provisions of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of course cannot be barred by statute since it is extraordinary power under Article 136. Article 136 is an extra-ordinary power which cannot be taken away by legislation. As considerable arguments are being raised before this Court as well as before various High Courts in the country on the maintainability of review petitions after the disposal of the special leave petition without granting leave but with or without assigning reasons on which also conflicting views are also being expressed by the two-Judge Benches of this Court. In order to resolve those conflicts and for proper guidance to the High Courts we feel it would be appropriate that this matter be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement- direction to the petitioner to pay 1 crore to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today & there will be stay of realization of balance amount till the issue is decided finally.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of special leave petition against the order of the High Court.
2. Applicability of res-judicata and merger doctrine in review petitions.
3. Conflict between judgments regarding filing review petitions after dismissal of special leave petitions.
4. Interpretation of Article 136 of the Constitution and its discretionary powers.
5. Consideration of statutory right of appeal in relation to res-judicata and merger principles.

Issue 1: Maintainability of special leave petition against the order of the High Court
The respondent argued that since the SLP was earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court without stating a reason, it constituted res-judicata and the High Court rightly dismissed the review petition. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition, as a non-speaking order does not lead to merger. The conflicting views on maintainability of review petitions after dismissal of SLPs were highlighted, with some judgments emphasizing abuse of process in such cases.

Issue 2: Applicability of res-judicata and merger doctrine in review petitions
The Court examined the principles of res-judicata and merger in the context of review petitions. It was observed that filing a review petition after the dismissal of an SLP could amount to abuse of process, while timely review petitions were considered maintainable. The judgment in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Kunhay Ammed cases were referred to for guidance on this issue.

Issue 3: Conflict between judgments regarding filing review petitions after dismissal of special leave petitions
The Court noted conflicting views on the filing of review petitions post dismissal of SLPs, citing cases like Meghamala, Palani Raman Catholic Mission, and Bhakra Beas Management Board. The conflicting decisions in Gangadhara Palo and K. Rajamouli cases highlighted the need for resolution by a larger Bench to address the discrepancies and provide clarity on the matter.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Article 136 of the Constitution and its discretionary powers
The Court discussed Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasizing the discretionary power conferred on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. It clarified that Article 136 grants wide and extensive powers to the Court, which cannot be barred by statute, as it is an extraordinary jurisdiction with over-riding effect.

Issue 5: Consideration of statutory right of appeal in relation to res-judicata and merger principles
The Court raised the issue of how res-judicata and merger principles would apply in decisions rendered by the Court under statutory powers of appeal versus those under Article 136. The need to address conflicts and provide guidance to High Courts on the maintainability of review petitions post SLP dismissal without granting leave was emphasized, leading to a decision to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.