Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7797 of 2003
PETITIONER:
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Abdul Kareem
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
I.A. 3 OF 2006
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7797 OF 2003
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
By this application, the applicant who was the
respondent in the appeal has prayed for clarification of the
order dated 2.8.2005 in the concerned Civil Appeal No. 7797
of 2003.
It is stated that the applicant (respondent in the civil
appeal) is living in penury, has no means to pay back the
amount which is sought to the recovered. The pension
amount has already being attached and the balance is now
being sought to be recovered.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation on the
other hand submitted that in the guise of application for
clarification, review of the judgment is being sought for.
By order dated 2nd August, 2005 it was held that the
learned Single judge and the Division Bench had erroneously
granted the benefits of increment notionally to the applicant
during the period when he was out of service.
The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a
review under the guise of making an application for
clarification apparently being fully aware of the normal
procedure that such applications for review are not, unless
Court directs, listed for open hearing in court, at the initial
stage at least, before ordering notice to the other side and
could be summarily rejected, if found to be of no prima facie
merit. The move adopted itself is unjustified, and could not be
countenanced also either by way of review or in the form of the
present application as well. The nature of relief sought, and
the reasons assigned are such that even under the pretext of
filing a review such an exercise cannot be undertaken,
virtually for re-hearing and alteration of the judgment because
it is not to the liking of the party, when there is no apparent
error on record whatsoever to call for even a review. The said
move is clearly misconceived and nothing but sheer abuse of
process, which of late is found to be on the increase, more for
selfish reasons than to further or strengthen the cause of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
justice. The device thus adopted, being otherwise an
impermissible move by mere change in nomenclature of the
applications does not change the basic nature of the petition.
Wishful thinking virtually based on surmises too, at any rate
is no justification to adopt such undesirable practices. If at all
it should be for weighty and substantial reasons.
It is to be noted that a review application can be filed
under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XL of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short the Rules). Rule 3 of
Order XL is significant. It reads as follows:-
"Rule 3 - Unless otherwise ordered by the
Court an application for review shall be
disposed of by circulation without any oral
arguments, but the petitioner may supplement
his petition by additional written arguments.
The Court may either dismiss the petition or
direct notice to the opposite party. An
application for review shall as far as
practicable be circulated to the same Judge or
Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment
or order sought to be reviewed."
In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors.
(2000 (7) SCC 296), it was held that by describing an
application one for "clarification" or "modification" though it is
really one of review a party cannot be permitted to circumvent
or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a
hearing in the open Court. What cannot be done directly
cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The court should
not permit hearing of such an application for "clarification",
"modification" or "recall" if the application is in substance a
clever move for review.
The application cannot be maintained and is rejected.