Non-speaking dismissal of special leave petition in limine does not bar later examination of the same legal questions.

A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition in limine under Article 136 does not amount to a decision on the merits and does not create a binding adjudication between the parties. On that basis, the earlier dismissal could not prevent the High Court from seeking a statement of case on the legal questions arising from the Tribunal's order. The Appellate Tribunal was therefore directed to state the case, and the appeal was allowed on this point.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of an earlier special leave petition in limine without any expression on the merits of the controversy barred the High Court from calling for a statement of case on the questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: A dismissal of a special leave petition in limine under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not amount to a decision on the merits and does not clothe the order with the authority of a binding adjudication on the controversy between the parties. Since no view was expressed on the merits, the High Court was not justified in treating the earlier dismissal as concluding the matter and refusing to seek a statement of the case from the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion: The questions of law required consideration and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to state the case to the High Court. The appeal was allowed on this point.

Final Conclusion: An in limine dismissal of special leave does not preclude subsequent examination of the legal questions arising from the Tribunal's order, and the reference to the High Court was ordered. The connected special leave petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition in limine under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not operate as a decision on merits or bar further adjudication of the same legal questions.

---