P. ASHOKANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1998 INSC 73
- Decided
- 6 February 1998
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Article 32 cannot be invoked to obtain reconsideration of a decision that has become final on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of a decision that had become final on its merits. The petition sought reconsideration of that final decision. The Court examined whether Article 32 can be invoked to obtain a fresh look at a final order. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General (1996) 3 SCC 114, the Court held that once a decision is final, Article 32 cannot be used for reconsideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of a maintainable case under Article 32.
Issues considered
- Can a writ petition under Article 32 be entertained to seek reconsideration of a final decision on its merits?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
Judgment
-.
P. ASHOKAN A
, •.
.... '1' v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
' '
FEBRUARY 6, 1998
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B
C'('
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 32-Decision attaining finality-Reconsideration of-Held,
cannot be claimed on the basis of its effect in accordance with law-On c
merits, no case to entertain the petition under Article 32 made out.
Khoday Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme
.
Court India, [1996] 3 SCC page 114.
D
(
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. of 1997.
Dairy No. 20068of1997.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
E
Manoj Swamp, Ms. Lalita Kohli and Ms. M. Swamp for Mis. Manoj
Swamp & Co. for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
-·' On merits, we find no case to entertain this petition under Article 32 of
T
the Constitution. Besides a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, authored
by J.S. Verma, J. (as Hon'ble the Ex-Chief Justice then was) in Khoday
Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. The Rejistrar General, Supreme Court of
India, [1996] 3 SCC The Page 114 has ruled as follows: G
T-
"In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the
correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there cari
be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim
reconsideration of the decision on tlie basis of its effect in accordance H
717
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 1 S.C.R.
A with law. Frequent resort to the decision in Antulay in such situations
is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasis tl1is fact."
" '
We are in agreement with such view.
B
. '
The writ petition is dismissed.
Jc
R.P. Petition dismissed.
,1
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.