Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a miscellaneous application filed in a writ petition disposed of years earlier, holding that such applications cannot revive concluded proceedings on the basis of subsequent events, and directed the Registry not to circulate post-disposal applications without a sworn averment of the limited ground on which they lie.
Issues
- Whether a miscellaneous application seeking police protection on account of later events is maintainable in a writ petition under Article 32 that has already been finally disposed of.
- In what circumstances a post-disposal miscellaneous application may be entertained.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe writ petition had been disposed of under Article 32 with a direction to decide the applicant's contempt application; the Court held that after final disposal no proceeding remains pending in which a fresh grievance can be raised by miscellaneous application. (¶¶ 5, 6, 14, 15)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court left the applicant free to approach the territorial High Court under Article 226 for protection against the apprehended threat, and asked the High Court to take up any such petition early. (¶¶ 15, 20, 23)
Held
- A miscellaneous application is not maintainable in a disposed of writ petition to reopen the proceedings on subsequent events giving a fresh cause of action; once a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226 is finally disposed of, nothing is pending and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such an application, as otherwise finality would lose meaning. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Following Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., a post-disposal application lies for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, and an application for modification or clarification lies only in rare cases where the order is executory and has become impossible to implement because of subsequent events or developments. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Registry was directed not to circulate any miscellaneous application in disposed of proceedings unless it carries a specific averment on oath that it is needed because the executory order has become impossible to implement owing to subsequent events, and to insist on such a solemn declaration from every applicant. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The applicant's apprehension of harm from the contemnor is a fresh grievance to be pursued by a writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226. (¶¶ 20, 23)
Result
Delay condoned and permission to appear in person granted; miscellaneous application rejected with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the proper forum; application against the Registrar's order also rejected; directions issued to the Registry.