Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 11293-11294 of 2001
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
RESPONDENT:
MANISHA DWIVEDI AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2001
BENCH:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(2) SCR 475
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court
dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 (in fact it is found to be 12.1.2001). Notice
was issued on the appeal leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents
filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts
were not brought to the notice of the Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for
two reasons; first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the
documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was
passed on 12.1.2001; if that were to be correct there was no dealy in
filing the special petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it
turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on
12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a
case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year
which remains unexplained and, therefore, the special leave petitions
cannot be entertained. Secondly, the impugned order is only an
interlocutory order and the Writ Petition is still pending. This Court will
not normally execrise its jursidiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special
circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the
Court. We do not find any special circumstances warranting our intereferece
in this case.
Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions are
dismissed accordingly.