- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashok Kumar And Others v. Delhi Development Authority .
Factual and Procedural Background
The original litigation culminated in the Supreme Court decision titled Delhi Development Authority v. Surgical Coop. Industrial Estate Ltd., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 20. In that judgment, a three-judge Bench directed that ten members could obtain plots upon paying 50% of Rs 10,756 per square metre within one month, with no further extension of time.
Subsequently, the present petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that, in violation of the earlier order, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a letter dated 1-7-1994 demanding additional sums. They sought a writ of mandamus to protect them from these alleged excess demands.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable to challenge alleged non-compliance with, or variation of, a final order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The letter dated 1-7-1994 required payment of amounts exceeding those specified in the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
- A writ of mandamus under Article 32 was sought to prevent enforcement of the alleged excess demand.
The opinion does not detail any submissions made by the Delhi Development Authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi Development Authority v. Surgical Coop. Industrial Estate Ltd., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 20 | Final directions of the Supreme Court under Article 136 are binding and conclusive. | The Court held that its earlier order in this precedent had attained finality; therefore, the present Article 32 petition was not maintainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that its earlier judgment, rendered while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136, had become final. Consequently, the petitioners could not invoke Article 32 to reopen or modify that final decision. The Court characterized the writ petition as “sheer abuse of the process of the Court,” emphasizing that once a matter is conclusively decided by the Supreme Court, a subsequent constitutional writ cannot be entertained on the same issue.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 30,000.
Direct Effect: The petitioners receive no relief, and the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover the awarded costs from them. The decision reinforces the principle that final orders of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged through a fresh writ petition, but it sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming this settled doctrine.
Order
1. The litigation ultimately ended in Delhi Development Authority v. Surgical Coop. Industrial Estate Ltd. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 20 and the matters were disposed of by a Bench of three Judges of this Court with the following directions :
“We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority insofar as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 50% of Rs 10,756 per square metre the Delhi Development Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, we would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each of these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt of such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them. The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs.”
Now the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed containing (sic contending) that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on 1-7-1994 directed the appellants to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this Court exercising power under Article 136, became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, which the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.
2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert