Gurbachan Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr
- SCC(1996) 3 SCC 117
- Neutral1996 INSC 218
- SCR[1996] 2 SCR 400
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity, correctness, or legality of an order or judgment already passed by this Court is not maintainable; the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a review petition or such other application as may be available in law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R This writ petition is filed against the order passed by this Court under Article 136 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court and the arbitrator awarding enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Amendment Act 68 of l984 in respect of lands acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. A three- Judge Bench of this Court had held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the award passed under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Consequently, the direction and order for the payment of interest and solatium was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be nullity. The question then is: whether writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would lie?
Dealing with the same question in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 482] this Court had observed thus:
"In my views the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file".
Following the above ratio, in Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India [W.P (C) No.803 of 1995] decided on December 5, 1995, a three-Judge Bench [to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member] has held that after the decision of this Court in M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 574] writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution canvassing the correctness of the decision of this Court, is not maintainable.
Thus the judgment and order of this Court passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free