Supreme Court orders are binding and cannot be collaterally challenged through a fresh Article 32 writ petition.

A writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to collaterally question the correctness or binding effect of earlier Supreme Court orders or to seek a licence renewal contrary to those orders. The Court treated such a challenge as legally misconceived because Article 141 and Article 144 require obedience to Supreme Court orders. A petition filed to re-open settled orders was characterised as an abuse of process and a waste of judicial time, and the writ was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 32 could be maintained to question the correctness and binding effect of earlier orders of the Supreme Court and to compel grant or renewal of a saw mill licence without being influenced by those orders.

Analysis: The relief sought was a direct attempt to re-agitate the correctness of earlier orders of the Supreme Court through a fresh writ petition. Such a challenge was impermissible. The Court held that the mandate of Article 144, read with Article 141, required obedience to the Court's orders, and that the petition was founded on a misconception of law. The filing of the petition was characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of judicial time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Orders of the Supreme Court are binding and cannot be collaterally questioned in a subsequent writ petition under Article 32; a petition brought to re-open such orders is an abuse of process and liable to dismissal.

---