Constitution of India, 1949
Articles-32 & 226- Extraordinary power of the Constitutional Court-It is well settled that the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts in directing C.B.I. t0 conduct investigation in a case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially, when there is lack of confidence in the investigating agency or in the national interest and for doing complete justice in the matter. Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts, must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. Sujatha Ravi Kiran -VS- State of Kerala [1 LM (SC) 619]
Article 32- Writ of mandamus The petitioner asked on 10.1.2019 for an appointment of regular Director and that meeting be convened at the earliest to appoint regular Director. We find that since the regular Director has been appointed the main prayer of the petitioner stands satisfied and there is absolutely no justification to continue with this writ petition in the aforesaid circumstances. In case the due process has not been followed in the appointment, it is always open to any incumbent, if so advised, to question the appointment in accordance with law but not in the routine manner and undue haste as shown in the petition. We find no ground to interfere with this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs as incurred. Common Couse -VS- Union of India, [6 LM (SC) 68]
Article 40- Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of selfgovernment. In the light of the experience in the last forty years and in view of the shortcomings which have been observed, it is considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them. Kiran Pal Singh -VS- The State of Uttar Pradesh, (5 LM (SC) 203)
Article 137- Review- The petitioner was convicted and awarded death sentence by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) Saket Court Complex New Delhi. Delhi High Court confirmed the death reference and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence. Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 13.03.2014, Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner which appeal was dismissed by this Court on 05.05.2017. Now, this application is filed to review the judgment dated 05.05.2017 dismissing the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner. This court had cautiously gone into and revisited the entire evidences on record and after being fully satisfied had dismissed the appeal. By the review petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out certain evidences and materials which were on the record and were already looked into by the trial court, High court and this Court as well. Review petition does not disclose any ground, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under Article 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme court Rules, 2013. Consequently, the review petition is rejected...... Mukesh =VS= State of NCT of Delhi, [4 LM (SC) 101]
Article 137- When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd......Mukesh VS State of NCT of Delhi, [4 LM (SC) 101]
Article 137- When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."......Mukesh =VS=State of NCT of Delhi, [4 LM (SC) 101]
Article 142-50% back wages We find that the Labour Court in one line simply directed the appellant (employer) to pay full back wages for a long period to 37 workmen while directing their reinstatement in service. We cannot, therefore, concur with such direction of the Courts below awarding full back wages to the workman which, in our opinion, has certainly caused prejudice to the appellant (employer). Having regard to the and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to these 37 workmen 50% of the total back wages. Regional Chief Engineer P.H.ED. -VS- District Secretary, (5 LM (SC) 111] Article 142- Having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case such as period and money spent in litigation by the deceased workman and on his death by his legal representatives coupled with the fact that the workman-Phool Chand has since expired, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to the respondents (legal representatives of Late Phool Chand) 50% of the total back wages. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur -VS- Phool Chand, 15 LM (SC) 209 Article 142- Gratuity payable to an officer This is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, direct that the appellants Banks shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) in full and final settlement of all their claims including the expenses which they have incurred for litigation for more than two decades. The amount, as above, shall be paid within eight weeks from today. Central Bank of India -VS-M Sethumadhavan, [3 LM (SC) 7]
