2024 (4) TMI 1147 - SC - Indian Laws

Review Application filed by the ex-propriated land owners, eventually seeking further enhancement of compensation - dismissal of application invoking the Doctrine of Merger - HELD THAT - If the leave to appeal was granted and a consequential order was passed, such an order would then attract the Doctrine of Merger and consequently, the decision of the High Court which is under challenge, shall stand merged with that of the order passed by this Court. Since the High Court s judgment will stand subsumed in the order of this Court and in a way, will no longer be in existence, an application seeking review thereof shall not be maintainable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order to the extent it declined to entertain the Review Application on the premise that after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, no Review Petition was maintainable, is liable to be set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the Review Application on merits - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the Doctrine of Merger in the context of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and subsequent Review Application.
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to entertain the Review Application based on the Doctrine of Merger.

Analysis:
1. The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of the Doctrine of Merger concerning the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and the subsequent Review Application. The High Court, in this case, had dismissed a Review Application seeking further enhancement of compensation for expropriated landowners, invoking the Doctrine of Merger. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court amounted to a decision on the merits of the case, thereby attracting the Doctrine of Merger.

2. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, analyzed the legal position regarding the Doctrine of Merger as established in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that when the Supreme Court refuses to grant special leave to appeal, even through a reasoned order, it does not attract the Doctrine of Merger. The Court reiterated the principle that such an order signifies the Court's decision not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court referenced previous cases to support this position, including Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

3. The Supreme Court clarified that if leave to appeal is granted and a consequential order is passed, then the Doctrine of Merger applies. In such cases, the decision of the High Court under challenge merges with the order passed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court's judgment becomes subsumed in the Supreme Court's order, rendering a review application on the High Court's judgment not maintainable. The Court held that the High Court erred in declining to entertain the Review Application solely based on the premise that it was not maintainable after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.

4. As a result of the analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the Review Application on its merits. The Court made it clear that its ruling did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court on a specified date, and the civil appeals were disposed of accordingly, along with any pending interlocutory applications.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the Doctrine of Merger in the context of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and subsequent Review Application, emphasizing the circumstances under which the Doctrine applies and the implications for the parties involved.