- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sabia Khan And Others v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, long–standing licensed operators of sawmills in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, were denied renewal of their licences by the Regional Director, Social Forestry (communication dated 18-1-1998). The licensing authority acted in obedience to injunctions issued by the Supreme Court on 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India. Claiming that those injunctions were merely “ad hoc” and not binding judicial verdicts, the petitioners invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to ignore the earlier Supreme Court orders and renew their licences for 1998.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the injunction orders dated 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India are binding under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution on subordinate authorities such as the Regional Director, Social Forestry.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 32 can be maintained to question or circumvent prior orders of the Supreme Court itself.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Supreme Court’s orders of 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 were “ad hoc” directions, not judicial verdicts, and therefore the licensing authority was not
required
to follow them. - The orders allegedly fall outside the purview of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and lack statutory basis.
- The directions infringe the petitioners’ fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g); any restriction on that right must be imposed only by legislation under Article 19(6), not by judicial order.
- Issuing such orders through public-interest litigation effectively amends the Constitution without following the special procedure under Article 368.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (Orders dated 12-12-1996 & 4-3-1997) | Supreme Court’s environmental injunctions are binding nationwide under Articles 141 and 144. | The Court held that subordinate authorities were duty-bound to comply with these injunctions, and that they could not be nullified through a fresh Article 32 petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found the writ petition to be “misconceived and based on a total misconception.” Its analysis proceeded as follows:
- Binding force of Supreme Court orders: Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and Article 144 mandates all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Court. Consequently, the licensing authority correctly abided by the injunctions issued in T.N. Godavarman.
- Inadmissibility of collateral attack: An Article 32 petition cannot serve as a vehicle to question the correctness of existing Supreme Court orders; such an attempt constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process.
- Abuse of process: The Court characterised the petition as a waste of judicial time, aimed solely at re-litigating issues already settled, and therefore liable to dismissal with exemplary costs.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED WITH COSTS. The petition was rejected, and costs of Rs 10,000 were imposed, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Implications: The decision reiterates that Supreme Court injunctions are immediately binding on all authorities and cannot be challenged through a fresh writ petition. It underscores the Court’s intolerance for collateral attacks on its own orders and signals that abusive litigation will attract monetary sanctions. No novel legal precedent was set; the ruling reinforces existing constitutional principles under Articles 141 and 144.
1. Refusal to grant a new licence for sawmills by the Regional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Rampur, to the petitioners vide communication dated 18-1-1998, based on the injunction issued by this Court on 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India has been put in issue in this writ petition. Mr Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the authority was not “required” to go by the orders of this Court, which according to him were not judicial verdicts but “ad hoc orders”. We are at a loss to appreciate the submission. Learned counsel apparently overlooks the mandate of Article 144 of the Constitution read with Article 141.
2. While projecting a grievance against the order dated 4-3-1997 passed by this Court, the petitioners in para 13 of the grounds say thus:
“… the order in question dated 4-3-1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not come within the purview of the said Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 nor did any other law authorise the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass the said order nor could the Hon'ble Supreme Court pass the said order on the general ground that the said order protected forest and environment which fell within the Directive Principles of State Policy finding place in Part IV of the Constitution of India which only allowed the competent legislature to enact laws for enforcing the said Directive Principles and which did not by themselves have the force of law under which the Hon'ble Court could pass the order in question dated 4-3-1997.”
Again the petitioners aver in para 26 thus:
“Because an ad hoc order like the order in question passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4-3-1997 infringing the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India could not be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even in public interest litigation, because the only manner permitted by the Constitution for interfering with the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) was by passing some law under Article 19(6) of the Constitution and any interference with such right in any other way, including by an order under public interest litigation would amount to an amendment of Article 19(6) of the Constitution for making which amendment a special procedure under Article 368 of the Constitution had been provided and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is respectfully submitted, could not bring about such amendment by merely passing some order in a public interest litigation.”
3. The relief claimed by the petitioner, in this petition, is as follows:
“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or writ, direction or order in the nature thereof or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to interfere with the fundamental right of the petitioners to continue to run and operate their sawmills as licensed operators thereof as has continuously been shown in the respondents' own records for the last several years and to grant/renew their licences for the year 1998 without, in any manner, being influenced by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, T.N Godavarman v. Union of India.
(ii) to grant such further or other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the special circumstances of this case.
(iii) to award costs of this petition to the petitioners.”
4. After hearing Mr Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, it is obvious that the petition is misconceived and based on a total misconception. It is an obvious attempt to question the correctness of the orders of this Court through a writ petition under Article 32, which is not permissible. The objection with regard to the office report is also not tenable. Filing of such a petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and waste of time of the Court. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs 10,000.
5. The costs shall be deposited in the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Court Masters
Alert