9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the dismissal of the special leave petition, ‘it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court - By a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution - Delay is condoned - 5280 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2011 - Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ritu Raj Chodhary (for Manu Shanker Mishra), Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Sanjay Kapur, Abhishek Kumar, A. Nanda, V. Pattabhiram (for G.N. Reddy), Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the review petition was filed after the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court. 7. We regret, we cannot agree. In our opinion, it will make no difference whether the review petition was filed in the High Court before the dismissal of the special leave petition or after the dismissal of the special leave petition. The important question really is whether the judgment of the High Court has merged into the judgment of this Court by the doctrine of merger or not. 8. When this Court dismisses a special leave petition by giving some reasons, however meagre (it can be even of just one sentence) , there will be a merger of the judgment of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the special leave petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions of this Court in the cases of Kunhayammed Others v. State of Kerala Another - (2000) 6 SCC 359 = 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.); S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu Another - JT 2002 (7) SCC 568; State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei - AIR 1996 SC 2124; and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma and Others - AIR 2005 SC 2250). 10. A judgment which continues to exist can obviously be reviewed, though of course the scope of the review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record but, it cannot be said that the review petition is not maintainable at all. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sanjay Kapur has, however, invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the judgment of this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng out of special leave petition is maintainable. 12. We have carefully perused paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment. What has been observed therein is that if the review petition is filed in the High Court after the dismissal of the special leave petition, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court . 13. In our opinion, the above observations cannot be treated as a precedent at all. We are not afraid of affronts. What has to be seen is whether a legal principle is laid down or not. It is totally irrelevant whether we have been affronted or not. 14. A precedent is a decision which lays down some principle of law. In our view, the observations made in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment, quoted above, that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
