Holding

A petition for special leave to appeal is not maintainable against an order refusing a review, and a petitioner whose earlier SLP on the same order has been dismissed cannot file another SLP, leading to dismissal of both SLPs and the civil appeal.

Summary

Kumaran Silk Trade (P) Ltd. obtained a sanctioned plan for a basement, parking, ground floor and three upper floors but illegally constructed additional floors 4, 5 and 6, violating building bye‑laws and the plan. A contempt application was filed and the Madras High Court ordered status‑quo on 2 March 2001; the appellant withdrew the ensuing civil appeal but retained a liberty to seek a review. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 17771/2006 challenging the High Court's order refusing to entertain a review petition, and SLP No. 17773/2006 seeking permission to contest a High Court judgment striking down amendments to Section 113A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, to which it was not a party. The Supreme Court held that a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 is not maintainable against an order refusing a review, and that a petitioner whose earlier SLP on the same order has been dismissed cannot file another SLP on the same ground. Consequently, both SLPs and the civil appeal were dismissed, and the status‑quo order was vacated. The Court also emphasized that the petitioner’s contemptuous conduct in flouting the plan barred any discretionary relief.

Issues considered

Whether a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 is maintainable against a High Court order refusing to entertain a review petition.
Whether a petitioner whose earlier SLP on the same order has been dismissed may file a fresh SLP invoking Article 136.
Whether a non‑party can be granted permission to challenge a High Court judgment in unrelated writ petitions.
Whether the petitioner’s conduct of unauthorized construction affects the grant of special leave.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Special Leave PetitionArticle 136Review PetitionMaintainabilityContempt of Courts ActTamil Nadu Town and Country Planning ActUnauthorized constructionCourt discretionAppeal withdrawn

Judgment

A KUMARAN SILK TRADE (P) LTD.
v.
DEVENDRA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 19, 2006

B [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 136-0rder dismissing petition for review-Special leave
C petition against-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable.

Article 136-Special leave petition dismissed as withdrawn-Held,
petitioner cannot file special leave petition again by invoking Article 136.

The petitioner got a plan sanctioned for construction of a basement,
D parking, ground floor and 3 floors. It constructed additional floors 4, 5 and
6 flouting the approved plan, building bye-laws and other relevant enactments.
Contempt application was filed. High Court passed an order dated 2.3.2001.
Appellant challenged that order by filing appeal before this Court That appeal
was dismissed as withdraWn with liberty to approach High Court to file Review
E petition. Against the same order of High Court dated 2.3.2001, appeal No.4577
of 2006 is filed.

SLP No.17771/2006 is filed seeking permission to challenge the order
of High Court dated 7.9.2006 passed in Review application.

p SLP No.17773/2006 is filed seeking permission of this Court for
challenging judgment of High Court striking down amendments brought
about to Section I 13A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
in which petitioner was not party on the ground of being affected party.

Dismissing the appeal and the petitions, the Court
G
HELD: I.I. SLP No.17771/2006 challenges the order of High Court
refusing to review its earlier decision. No petition for special leave to appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India could be entertained against
such an order. Respondent had argued that petitioner is also seeking to

H 670
KUMARAN SILK TRADE(P) LTD. v. DEVENDRA 671

challenge the original order by way of the petition for special leave to appeal. A
But it is seen that against the original order, a petition for special leave to
appeal was filed in this Court and that petition was dismissed. Since the
petition for special leave to appeal has already been dismissed by this Court,
it is no more open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order in
this Court again by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. B
(673-G; 674-C-D(

Shankar Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, (1994( 2 SCC
753; Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors., (2004( 13 SCC 675
and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., (2004(
13 sec 677, relied on. c
1.2. CA No.4577/2006 is filed seeking to challenge the order dated

- 2.3.2001 in Contempt Application. Against the said decision, the petitioner
had already filed appeal but had withdrawn the same reserving only liberty in
itself to seek a review of the decision of the High Court. In view of this, it is
not open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order again in D
this Court. Hence the Civil Appeal sought to be filed has only to be rejected.
Even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
especially taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, there is no reason to
interfere with the order on the review petition in the Contempt Application in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, even assuming that the first petition for special leave to appeal E
against the order refusing to review is maintainable, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner therein in view of the finality that would be attained by the

.. order on the petition for review of the order dated 2.3.2001 in Contempt
Application No.560 of 2000 in view of refusal of this court to exercise
discretionary jurisdiction in that case. Thus, the petition for special leave to F
appeal and the Appeal are liable to be rejected. (674-E-F; 675-F-H; 676-Af

Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr., (2000( 6 SCC 359 and
Abbai Ma/igai Partnership Firm & Anr. v. K. Santhakumaran & Ors., (1998)
7 sec 386, referred to.

2. Coming to SLP No.17773 of 2006, in view of conclusion in the first G
...,,- petition for special leave to appeal, and in the Appeal, there is no necessity
for or justification in granting any permission to the petitioner for
challenging the order of the High Court in the connected writ petitions to
which it is not a party. In view ofrefusal of this court to entertain the challenge
.i- of the petitioner to the orders against it, the petitioner and the authorities H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A who are respondents, are bound to implement the orders of the High Court to
ensure that the unauthorized constructions are removed and the majesty of
law is upheld. In view of this, it is not necessary or proper to grant to the
petitioner the permission sought for. The conduct of petitioner also does not
warrant it. 1676-A-C)

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
1777 l of2006.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 11.9.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Review Application No. 84 of 2005, Review Sub
C Application No. 366/2001 and Order dated 3.8.2000 in Wirt Appeal No. 1171/
2001.
WITH
C.A. No. 4577 of2006 -
AND
D
S.L.P. (C) No. 17773 of2006

Soli J. Sorabjeee, Shanti Bhushan, C.A. Sundaram, Arun Jaitely, Rajeev
Dhawan, R.V. Viswanathan, Nagasubramanian, N. Sridhar and V. Mohana for
E the Appellant.

A.K. Ganguli, V.G. Pragasam and S. Vallinayagam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. SLP(C) No. 17771 of2006 (CC No. 7240
F of2006.

1. This petition of special leave to appeal seeks to challenge the order
of the High Court dated 7.9.2006 passed in Review Application No. 84 of2005
and Review Sub-Application No. 366 of2001 in Writ Appeal No. 1171 of2000.
An attempt has been made to indicate in the petition for special leave to
G appeal that the order dated 3.8.2000 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1171 of 2000
is also being appealed from.

Civil Appeal No. 4577 of2006 (D.No. 24316 of2006.

2. This appeal purports to challenge the order of the High Court dated
H
KUMARAN SILK TRADE (P) LTD. r. DE VENDRA (BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 673

2.3.2001 passed in Contempt Application No. 560 of2000. The application is A
filed with a delay of 1970 days in filing it. It may be noted that challenging
the very same order the appellant had filed Civil Appeal No. I 83 7 of 200 I.
That appeal was withdrawn by the appellant herein. The order dated 9. I I .2001
reads as under:

"Learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks leave of the Court to B
withdraw this appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court for appropriate

- relief by way of a Review Petition.

It is made clear that the order made by us on 23 .3 .200 I to maintain
status quo, shall continue for a period of one week from today.

What is attempted now is to file yet another appeal against the very same
C

order of the High Court invoking Section I 9 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.

SLP (C) No. 17773 of2006 (CC No. 7585 of2006) D
3. This petition for Special Leave to Appeal is sought to be filed by
seeking the permission of this Court by way of I.A. No. I of 2006 for
challenging the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in Writ
Petition No. I 8898 of 2000 and other connected matters striking down the
.. amendments brought about to Section I 13A of the Tamil Nadu Town and E
Country Planning Act, 1971 by Amending Acts 31/2000, 17/2001 and 7/2002
and issuing other consequential and incidental directions. The petitioner was
not a party to any of the writ petitions but submits that the petitioner is
affected by the decision rendered by the High C-0urt in writ petitions and the
possible rights the petitioner may have under the amended provision stood F
annihilated by the decision.

4. The first of the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, as indicated,
challenges the order of the High Court refusing to review its earlier decision.
No petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India could be entertained against such an order. It has been so held by G
this Court in Shankar Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, [1994]
2 SCC 753. The said decision has been followed by another Bench of which
one of us (H.K. Sema, J.) was a party in Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v.
M. Lata and Ors., [2004] 13 SCC 675 wherein this Court held that a petition
.. for special leave to appeal against an order dismissing a petition for review H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A is not maintainble. This Court distinguished two cases cited in which the
question itself had not been adve11ed to or decided. Another Bench of this
Coul1 in M. N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendr(va Vidya/aya Sangathan and Ors.,
[2004] l 3 sec 677 again considered the questions and held that a petition for
special kave to appeal is not maintainable. This Court also held that once a
B petition for special leave to appeal is found not maintainable. no order can
or should be passed thereon except an order of dismissal of the same.

5. With respect, we see no reason to depal1 from the position adopted

C
in these decisions. All that was argued was that the petitioner is also seeking
to challenge the original order by way of the petition for speical leave to
appeal. But it is seen that against the original order dated 3.8.2000 a petition
for special leave to appeal, No. 5333 of 2001 was filed in this Court and that
petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2001 also taking into
-
account the conduct of the petitioner in this Court. Since the petition for
special leave to appeal has already been dismissed by this Court, it is no more
open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order in this Court
D again by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In view of this it
has to be held that the first of the petitions for special leave to appeal. is not
maintainable.

6. We have already noticed that the Appeal attempted to be filed seeks
to challenge the order dated 2.3.2001 in Contempt Application No. 560 of2000
E and that against the said decision the petitioner had already filed Civil Appeal ..
No. 183 7 of 2001 but had withdrawn the same reserving only liberty in itself
to seek a review of the decision of the High Court. In view of this, it is not
open to the petitioner to seek to challenge the original order again in this
Court after withdrawing the earlier appeal, reserving only a liberty in itself of
F seeking a review of the original order.

7. Hence, the Civil Appeal sought to be filed has only to be rejected.

8. In view of our conclusions that the first petition for special leave to
appeal and the appeal are not maintainable, it is not appropriate for us to pass
G any other order therein as has been observed by this Court in Susee/ Finance
& Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors. (supra). We m<:y, however, broadly
observe that the petitioner having got a plan sanctioned for construction of
a basement, parking ground floor and three floors had not only flouted the
permission and the plan in respect of the construction of those floors including
the not providing of any parking space, but even while the litigation was
H pending and it was permitted to carry on the construction in terms of the
KUMARAN SILK TRADE(P) LTD. r. DEVENDRA [BALASUIJRAMANYAN, .I.] 67 5

approved plan. had gone ahead and constructed additional floors 4, 5 and 6 A
without any regard to the Building bye-laws and other relevant enactments
and showing scant respect to the orders of Court. Such conduct does not
entitle the petitioner to any order by way of indulgence or discretion from this
Court. We have already held that the petitioner is not entitled to any order
as of right.
B
9. It was contended that in view of the order of this Court in C.A. Nos.
4479 of2004 and 4480 of2004, the petition for special leave to appeal and the
appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act must be held to be
maintainable. As we see it, all that this Court did was to condone the delay
on the part of the petitioner in filing one of the Review Petitions in the C
circumstances of the case and directing that the contentions sought to be
raised in review including the one based on the amendment to Section 1I 3A
of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 may be considered. Obviosly, a
decision on the Review Petitions themselves was left to the High Court and
the High Court has dismissed the Review Petitions after considering them on
merits. If such a dismissal cannot be challenged under Article 136 of the D
Constitution of India, nothing would turn upon the fact that the Review
Petitions were directed to be decided afresh on merits by this Court. As a
matter of fact at the earlier stage this Court did not consider the question
whether one of the appeals against the order dismissing the Review P·etition
on merits was maintainable. At best the order of remand and the decision in E
Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [2006] 6 SCC 359 would
enable the petitioner to get over the ratio of the three judges bench decision
in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Anr. v. K. Santhakumaran and Ors.,
[1998] 7 sec 386 that the seeking of a review after the petition for special
leave to appeal was dismissed without reserving any liberty in the petitioner
was an abuse of process. F
10. Even otherwise we find no reason to interfere with the order on the
review petition in the Contempt Application in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and especially taking note of the conduct of the
petitioner. Therefore, even assuming that the first petition for special leave to G
appeal against the order refusing to review the decision in Writ Appeal No.
1171 of 2000 is maintainable, no relief can be granted to the petitioner therein
in view of the finality that would be attained by the order on the petition for
review of the order dated 2.3.2001 in Contempt Application No. 560 of 2000
in view of our refusal to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in that case. H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 11. Thus, the petition for special leave to appeal and the Appeal are
liable to be rejected.

12. Coming to the second petition for special leave to appeal with
permission, we think that in view of our conclusion in the first petition for
special leave to appeal, and in the Appeal, there is no necessity for or
B justification in granting any permission to the petitioner for challenging the
order of the High Court of Madras in the connected writ petitions to which
it is not a party. In view of our refusal to entertain the challenge of the
petitioner to the orders against it, the petitioner and the authorities who are
respondents, are bound to implement the orders of the High Court to ensure
C that the unauthorized constructions are removed and the majesty of law is
upheld. In view of this, we do not think it necessary or proper to grant to
the petitioner the permission sought for. The conduct of the petitioner also
does not warrant it. We. therefore, decline permission to the petitioner to
challenge the decision of the High Court dated 23 .8.2006 in Writ Petition No.
18898 of 2000 and the connected cases.
D
13. Hence, the Petition for Special leave to Appeal and the Civil ~ppeal
sought to be filed are rejected. The order of status quo granted, is vacated.

D.G. Special Leave Petitions and Appeal dismissed.