Facts
Bullet point summary of this judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme court addressed a case involving petitioner Ajay Kumar Jain, who sought protection during the pendency of a civil appeal and other directions due to safety concerns despite previous favorable orders.
The Hon’ble court condoned the delay in filing petitioner’s application and permitted him to argue in person.
However, it is noted that the writ petition (Civil) No.429/2020 had been disposed of on August 6, 2021, with specific directions and the Apex court also directed the District Judge to expeditiously dispose of contempt application No.26/2016.
In examining the current miscellaneous application, the court found it is not maintainable in law and emphasizing that entertaining such applications in disposed proceedings such as present writ petition are typically not permissible unless correcting clerical errors or addressing executory orders,
Finally, Hon’ble Supreme Court has instructed the registry accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies before the High Court. Thus, the Apex court rejected the miscellaneous application but allowed the petitioner to seek protection through a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.
Important points in this judgment
Para. 15: Hon’ble Supreme Court order emphasizes that once a writ petition is finally disposed of, the court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any miscellaneous applications related to new causes of action. This means that after the final disposal of a writ petition, the court cannot reopen the proceedings through a miscellaneous application for matters that arise later. The court highlights that allowing such applications would lead to confusion and undermine the finality of the proceedings. Essentially, the court is asserting that once a case is closed, it should remain closed, and any new issues should be addressed through fresh legal proceedings rather than reopening the old case.
16. In the recent past, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed the following in “Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313”:-
“We felt it necessary to examine the question about maintainability of the present application as we are of the view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is disposed of. This Court has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the statute. This is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. Neither it is an application for extension of time. A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. The factual background of this Application does not fit into that description.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Party
Ajay Kumar Jain vs. The State of U.P., – Diary No. 39665/2024, M.A.D.No. 14381/2024, M.A.No. 714 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2020 – 2024 INSC 958 – 9th December, 2024.
