(India) Ltd. & Ors Vs. State of Maharastra
& Ors  INSC 25 (6 February 1991)
M.H. Kania, M.H. Misra, Rangnath (Cj) Kuldip Singh (J)
1991 SCR (1) 250 1991 SCC (1) 647 JT 1991 (1) 429 1991 SCALE (1)161
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.
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
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
High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the aforesaid
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.
of the Appeal, this Court,
(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]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1991.
the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.1990 of the Bombay High Court in W. P. No.
4497 of 1991.
Desai, N. Serwai, Dilip Udeshi, P.H. Parekh and J.P. Pathak for the Appellants.
K.K. Singhvi and Soli J. Sorabjee, A.M. Khanwilkar, Ravinder Narain, S. Ganesh,
and S. Kachwaha, S.K. Dholakia and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
E.C. Agrawala, Ashwini Kumar, Ms. Purnima Sethi and A.V. Pilli for 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
is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
matter shall now be placed before learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High
Court for passing appropriate directions.
appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs.
Appeal disposed of.