2000 (7) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Impact of an order rejecting a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal under article 136 of the Constitution of India Held that - The case at hand poses no problem for solution. The earlier order of the High Court was sought to be subjected to exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the State of Kerala wherein it did not succeed. The prayer contained in the petition seeking leave to appeal to this court was found devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. All that can be spelt out is that the court was not convinced of the need for exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The order of the High Court dated December 17 1982 did not merge in the order dated July 13 1983 passed by this court. So it is available to be reviewed by the High Court. Moreover such a right of review is now statutorily conferred on the High Court by sub-section (2) of section 8C of the Kerala Act. The Legislature has taken care to confer the jurisdiction to review on the High Court as to such appellate orders also against which though an appeal was carried to the Supreme Court the same was not admitted by it. An appeal would be said to have been admitted by the Supreme Court if leave to appeal was granted. The constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of section 8C has not been challenged. Though Shri T. L. V. Iyer learned senior counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt at raising such a plea at the time of hearing but unsuccessfully as such a plea has not so far been raised before the High Court also nor in the petition filed before this court. No fault can be found with the approach of the High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether any land is a private forest or not.
2. Whether any private forest or portion thereof is vested in the Government or not.
3. The legal implications and impact of an order rejecting a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4. Doctrine of merger and its applicability.
5. The distinction between the stages of special leave petition and appeal.
6. The effect of dismissal of special leave petitions on the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain review petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether any land is a private forest or not:
The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, was enacted to vest private forests in the Government and assign them to agriculturists and agricultural laborers. Disputes regarding whether any land is a private forest or vested in the Government are to be decided by a Tribunal constituted under the Act. Appeals against the Tribunal's decisions can be made to the High Court within 60 days.

2. Whether any private forest or portion thereof is vested in the Government or not:
A large family raised a dispute before the Forest Tribunal regarding 1,020 acres of land. The Tribunal held that the land did not vest in the Government. The State of Kerala's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and no further statutory remedy was available against the High Court's order.

3. The legal implications and impact of an order rejecting a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
The State of Kerala filed a special leave petition (SLP) under Article 136, which was dismissed on merits. The court clarified that the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not constitute res judicata. The Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave does not imply a decision on the merits of the case, and the High Court's order does not merge with the Supreme Court's order.

4. Doctrine of merger and its applicability:
The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of constitutional law but a common law doctrine based on propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery. It applies when an appellate authority modifies, reverses, or confirms a decision, causing the original decision to merge with the appellate decision. However, this doctrine does not apply to the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order.

5. The distinction between the stages of special leave petition and appeal:
The jurisdiction under Article 136 consists of two stages: granting special leave to appeal and hearing the appeal. Dismissing an SLP is an expression that the case is not fit for invoking the appellate jurisdiction, and the original order remains final and binding. If leave is granted, the appellate jurisdiction is invoked, and the original order's finality is put in jeopardy.

6. The effect of dismissal of special leave petitions on the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain review petitions:
The dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not prevent the High Court from entertaining a review petition. The High Court retains jurisdiction to review its order if grounds for review exist, as the original order does not merge with the Supreme Court's dismissal order. The High Court's statutory power to review is not affected by the Supreme Court's refusal to grant special leave.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not result in the merger of the High Court's order with the Supreme Court's order. The High Court retains jurisdiction to review its order, and such a review is permissible under the statutory provisions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's approach, with no order as to costs.