PETITIONER:
BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASIFTRA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1991
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 250 1991 SCC (1) 647
JT 1991 (1) 429 1991 SCALE (1)161
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Special Leave
Petition by appellants, aggrieved by High Court judgment,
not a party in writ petition-Liberty given to file review in
High Court.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order XLVII-Review-Party
affected by High Court-Judgment though not party in the writ
petition-Whether can file Review Petition in High Court.
HEADNOTE:
A writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging
the communication of Respondent No. 2-Corporation, directing
that no development be made in the disputed land, and no
building construction permitted within a certain distance
from the chemical factories in view of the representations
of the owners of the factories.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck
down the aforesaid communication.
Being aggrieved and adversely affected by the judgment,
some of the owners of the chemical factories, even though
they were not parties in the writ petition, filed a special
leave petition.
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court,
HELD: (1) Appellants can be said to be parties
aggrieved by the judgment, even if they are not regarded as
necessary parties in the writ petition. [251G-252A]
(2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
is no need to set aside the judgment of the High Court at
the instance of the appellants. They are, given liberty to
file a review petition before the High Court. The review
petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the High Court
and the appellants given a hearing as if the matters were
heard afresh as far as they are concerned. It is clarified
that the review application will not be confined to the
normal grounds on which a review can be sought but
251
the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between
the appellants and the respondents. [252A-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 578
of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.1990 of the
Bombay High Court in W. P. No. 4497 of 1991.
Ashok Desai, N. Serwai, Dilip Udeshi, P.H.
Parekh and J.P. Pathak for the Appellants.
U.R. Lalit, K.K. Singhvi and Soli J. Sorabjee,
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ravinder Narain, S. Ganesh, D.N.
Misra and S. Kachwaha, S.K. Dholakia and A.S. Bhasme
for the Respondents.
K.K. Venugopal, E.C. Agrawala, Ashwini Kumar,
Ms. Purnima Sethi and A.V. Pilli for the Applicant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIA, J. This Special Leave Petition is directed
against the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4497 of
1990. The High Court allowed the said writ petition
and struck down a communication from the
Bombay Municipal Corporation. respondent no. 2 herein,
informing the petitioners in the said writ petition,
who are arrayed as respondents nos. 3 to 13 before
us, that their application for permission to
develop the property, namely, the land in question
situated at Village Balkum near Thane, was rejected
in view of the representations submitted to the
Government by the owners of chemical factories
situated in the said village, who are the
appellants/petitioners herein that no building
construction permission should be granted within a
certain distance from the said factories. The
petitioners in the Special Leave Petition are some of
the said chemical factories. They were not joined in
the writ petition as respondents and have prayed for
leave to file the Special Leave Petition on the
ground that the judgment adversely affects them and
they are aggrieved by the same.
Permission is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.
We find that appellants can be said to be parties
aggrieved by the impugned judgment, even if they are
not regarded as necessary parties
252
in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we find that there is no need to set aside the
impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court at the instance
of the appellants. The appellants are. however, given
liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay High
Court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period
of four weeks from today. 9 In our opinion, it is proper
that the entire controversy to which the judgment relates
should be determined in the light of the submissions which
may be made by the appellants.
In these circumstances, we direct that the review
petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the Bombay High
Court and the appellants will be given a hearing as if the
matter were heard afresh as far as they are concerned. It
is clarified that the hearing of the review application will
not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can
be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as
open as between the appellants herein and the respondents.
The interim order made by this Court on January 8, 1991
will continue to remain in operation till the review
petition is decided by the High Court. However, it will be
open for the High Court to vary or vacate the interim order
on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties
or by any of the interveners here. If the review petition
is not filed within the said period of four weeks, the
appeal shall stand dismissed and all interim orders passed
by us shall be deemed to be vacated.
In our opinion, the review petition deserves to be
disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request
the High Court to dispose of the review petition, if filed
as aforestated, within four months from today and in any
event, by the 30th September, 1991.
The matter shall now be placed before learned Chief
Justice of the Bombay High Court for passing appropriate
directions.
The appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order
as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeal disposed of.
253