Later Supreme Court Ruling Cannot Reopen Union’s Dismissed Writ Challenges, Karnataka HC Says In Four MES Retirees’ Cases

The Union of India and others sought review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of orders dismissing their writ petitions concerning Central Administrative Tribunal decisions.

The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions, relying on Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn and the Bombay High Court’s decision in M.P. Joseph v. Union of India.

The Union submitted that, after the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court had allowed its appeal in M.P. Joseph on 28 April 2021, and argued that this subsequent decision disclosed an error warranting review.

The review petitions were heard together.

The petitions invoked Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court held that a change in law occurring after the order under review does not entitle a party to review an order that has attained finality between the parties; nor can a later Supreme Court judgment be relied upon as a review ground where the party did not appeal against the order.

Balbir Singh Turn and M.P. Joseph were identified as authorities relied upon in the original writ proceedings, but the Court did not independently restate their substantive rules in deciding these reviews.

The Supreme Court’s decision allowing the appeal in M.P. Joseph was delivered on 28 April 2021, after the High Court’s order under review dated 24 March 2021.

The Court therefore treated that decision as a subsequent change in law, not as a basis to reopen an order that had already attained finality between the parties.

It also noted that the review petitioners had not challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court; accordingly, the later decision did not establish a ground for review.

The Court dismissed the review petition as “not maintainable as lacking merit or substance”.

The connected review petitions were before the Court together.