Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Khoday Distilleries Limited and another against the Registrar General of the Supreme Court. The petition was a sequel to Civil Appeal Nos. 4708-4712 of 1989, which had been decided by a Constitution Bench on 19 October 1994 in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1995 (1) SCC 574. After that decision, the petitioners filed Review Petition Nos. 507-511 of 1995. By order dated 25 April 1995, the Court permitted the parties to file supplementary written submissions within four weeks, to emphasize additional submissions, and stated that the prayer for oral arguments would be considered later. After the supplementary submissions were filed, the review petitions were rejected by order dated 8 August 1995, which noted that all submissions had been answered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The main contentions of the petitioners, through counsel Shri G. Ramaswamy, were that the civil appeals had been listed before the Constitution Bench only for directions and were not heard on merits before being decided, and that the judgment in Khoday Distilleries was invalid for violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 (Suppl.1) SCR 1. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that the foundation for the argument did not exist because the orders dated 25 April 1995 and 8 August 1995 clearly showed that after the decision of the civil appeals, the petitioners were permitted to file supplementary written submissions, and those submissions were considered while deciding the review petitions. The Court distinguished Antulay, noting that it did not hold that a decision of this Court after attaining finality could be reopened under Article 32. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Krishnaswami v. Union of India, 1992 (4) SCC 605, which had confined Antulay to its peculiar facts. The Court also observed that even in Antulay, the writ petition under Article 32 filed to challenge the decision of this Court was dismissed, and relief was granted only in a subsequent appeal. The Court concluded that the present case involved a challenge to the correctness of a decision on merits after it had become final, and there could be no question of invoking Article 32 to claim reconsideration. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 - Finality of Supreme Court Judgments - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The writ petition challenged a Constitution Bench judgment on merits after review petitions were rejected. The Supreme Court held that a decision of this Court after attaining finality cannot be reopened under Article 32; a writ petition challenging correctness of a final judgment on merits is not maintainable. Held that the writ petition had no merit and dismissed it. B) Natural Justice - Right to Oral Hearing - Supplementary Written Submissions - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 read with Supreme Court Rules - The petitioners alleged violation of natural justice because civil appeals were decided without oral hearing. The Court found that the review orders permitted filing of supplementary written submissions and they were considered; all submissions had been answered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Held that foundation for violation of natural justice did not exist. C) Precedent - A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak - Applicability to Final Judgments - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The Supreme Court distinguished Antulay, confining it to its peculiar facts where jurisdiction was conferred on a court contrary to statutory provision. Antulay does not hold that a final decision can be reopened under Article 32. Held that reliance on Antulay was misplaced and frequent resort to it misconceived.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court on the ground of violation of natural justice, particularly after rejection of review petitions; and whether the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak permits reconsideration of a final judgment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no ground existed to invoke Article 32 for reconsideration of a final judgment on merits. The challenge based on violation of natural justice was rejected as supplementary written submissions were already considered; reliance on A.R. Antulay was misplaced.
Law Points
- A final decision of the Supreme Court cannot be reopened under Article 32
- A.R. Antulay is confined to its peculiar facts
- Writ petition under Article 32 challenging validity of this Court's order as nullity is not maintainable
- Principles of natural justice satisfied when supplementary written submissions are allowed and considered
- Review petitions dismissal after perusal of submissions
