Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others
"An application for 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' that in substance seeks a review cannot be used to obtain an open-court rehearing or a second review; it must be rejected, or treated as a review petition and dealt with in chambers."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether, after review petitions against a Supreme Court judgment have been dismissed by circulation, parties can seek reconsideration through interlocutory applications for 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' of the judgment, to be heard in open court?
- (ii)
How should such applications be dealt with?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 137, and the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL Rule 3 (review petitions disposed of by circulation without oral arguments) and Rule 5 (no further application for review in the same matter).
- (ii)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 48 (withdrawal from acquisition), on which relief was sought in the applications.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In 1999 the Court allowed appeals by the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority in a land acquisition matter, setting aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The review petitions were dismissed by circulation. The landowners then filed interlocutory applications seeking clarification, modification or recall of the judgment, a reference to a larger Bench, and relief under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Writing for the Court, Jagannadha Rao J. held that applications that are in substance review petitions cannot be dressed up as applications for clarification, modification or recall in order to avoid the rule that review petitions are decided by circulation in chambers; what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Once a review petition has been dismissed, Order XL Rule 5 bars a further review in the same matter.
When such an application is listed, the Court must first examine whether it is in substance a review. If it is, the Court may reject it straightaway, with or without costs, or permit its withdrawal with liberty to file a review petition to be dealt with in chambers. Entertaining such applications in open court would set a bad precedent.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The applications to reopen the 1999 judgment were rejected, though on the Solicitor General's concession the authorities were directed to consider a landowner's representation under Section 48, with status quo on possession in the meantime.
- (ii)
Applications for 'clarification', 'modification' or 'recall' that seek a rehearing on the merits are disguised review petitions and must be rejected, or dealt with as review petitions in chambers.
- (iii)
The decision is frequently applied where such applications are filed after a review petition has failed.