Clarification application after review dismissal held impermissible; successive petitions through changed counsel treated as abuse of process.

After dismissal of the special leave petition and rejection of the review petition, the Supreme Court held that a further clarification application could not be used to reopen the matter on merits. It noted that review is not a vehicle for rehearing and that successive petitions for the same relief, particularly through a newly engaged advocate without the requisite consent of the earlier advocate-on-record, are inconsistent with orderly administration of justice. The clarification application was therefore not entertained and was dismissed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application styled as a clarification application was maintainable after dismissal of the special leave petition and the review petition, and whether filing successive petitions through a newly engaged advocate amounted to abuse of process.

Analysis: The application arose after the special leave petition had already been dismissed and a review petition had also been rejected. The order records that review is not meant to permit a rehearing on merits, and that repeated petitions seeking the same relief, especially through a change of counsel without the requisite consent from the earlier advocate-on-record, are contrary to sound professional practice and the orderly administration of justice.

Conclusion: The clarification application was not entertained and was dismissed as an abuse of the process of court.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a petition for review has been dismissed, a further application for clarification seeking to reopen the matter through a changed advocate, without proper consent of the earlier advocate-on-record, is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process.

---