TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a fresh appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution was maintainable against the High Court order dismissing the writ petition after an earlier special leave petition against the same order had been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh; (ii) whether an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution was maintainable against the High Court order rejecting the review petition.
Issue (i): Whether a fresh appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution was maintainable against the High Court order dismissing the writ petition after an earlier special leave petition against the same order had been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.
Analysis: The earlier special leave petition had been withdrawn to pursue review before the High Court, and no liberty had been reserved to file a fresh special leave petition if review failed. In such circumstances, the original High Court order attained finality and could not be reagitated by a fresh special leave petition.
Conclusion: The fresh appeal against the writ petition order was not maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution was maintainable against the High Court order rejecting the review petition.
Analysis: Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 renders an order rejecting review not appealable, and the principle has been applied to proceedings under Article 136. The Court found no contrary authority supporting maintainability of a special leave challenge to the review rejection.
Conclusion: The appeal against the review order was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The civil appeals failed at the threshold on maintainability, and the Court declined to examine the merits of the underlying municipal and planning notices.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special leave petition is withdrawn without liberty to refile, the underlying order attains finality and cannot be challenged again under Article 136; likewise, an order rejecting review is not appealable under the settled principle embodied in Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
