Case Note & Summary
Background: The matter arose from an application for clarification filed in a disposed special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India. The original special leave petition was between Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. as petitioner and N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. as respondent. After the special leave petition was disposed of, a review petition was filed by a different advocate, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the present application for clarification was filed by yet another advocate. Facts: Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record, had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the disposal of the special leave petition, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate, filed a petition for review. The review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 24, 1996. Thereafter, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Advocate, was engaged to file an application styled as 'application for clarification', on the plea that the order was not clear and unambiguous. The Court noted that such plea was specious and that the practice of changing advocates and filing repeated petitions was unprofessional. Legal Issues: The core question was whether an application for clarification could be filed after the dismissal of a review petition, particularly when there was a change of advocate-on-record without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the previous advocate. Additionally, the Court considered whether such practice amounted to abuse of the process of court. Arguments: The applicant contended that the order was not clear and unambiguous, requiring clarification. However, the Court observed that the application was an attempt to reargue the matter on merits, disguised as a clarification. The Court also noted that the advocate who filed the clarification had not obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Advocate-on-Record who had appeared in the main matter, despite the Registry informing him of this requirement. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court relied on its earlier order in Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, where a three-judge bench had deprecated the practice of filing review petitions by advocates who were not involved in the original hearing and without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the erstwhile counsel. The Court reiterated that review petitions should not be filed as a routine and should not be used for re-hearing on merits. Applying these principles, the Court held that after dismissal of a review petition, no clarification application should be filed, especially with a change of advocate-on-record. The Court emphasized that such practice is detrimental to the purity of administration of law and the salutary and healthy practice of the Bar. It imposed exemplary costs of Rs.20,000 to deter such abuse. Decision: The application for clarification was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000 payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from the date of the order. If the amount was not paid, it would be recovered as a decree of the court by the Committee. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The judgment is dated December 20, 1996.
Headnote
A) Practice and Procedure - Review Petition - Change of Counsel - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing review petitions as routine after change of counsel without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Advocate-on-Record who argued the main matter. Held that such practice is not conducive to the healthy practice of the Bar and an advocate who did not appear in the original matter cannot file a review petition without NOC. (Para 1) B) Practice and Procedure - Clarification Application - Maintainability after Review Dismissal - Not mentioned - Once a review petition is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, especially with a change of advocate-on-record. The Court held that filing such application is an abuse of the process of court and derogation of healthy practice. (Para 1) C) Practice and Procedure - Exemplary Costs - Abuse of Process - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.20,000 on the applicant for abuse of process, to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months, failing which it would be recovered as a decree of the court. Held that repeated petitions with change of counsel are deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for clarification can be filed after dismissal of a review petition, particularly with a change of advocate-on-record without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the previous advocate, and whether such practice amounts to abuse of the process of court
Final Decision
The application for clarification was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000 payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months; failure to pay would result in recovery as a decree of the court. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Law Points
- Review petitions should not be filed routinely or as an attempt to reargue merits
- change of counsel without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Advocate-on-Record is impermissible
- once review is dismissed
- no clarification application is maintainable
- such practice constitutes abuse of process and attracts exemplary costs
