Judicial consistency bars challenge to a judgment already dismissed by the Supreme Court, while writ remedy remains open

Judicial consistency and discipline justified refusing to entertain a further Special Leave Petition where the relied upon judgment had already been challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition and a Review Petition, both dismissed; the challenge was accordingly not entertained. The Court also permitted the petitioner to pursue the writ remedy before the Bombay High Court under Article 226, directing that any such petition be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Special Leave Petition deserved to be entertained when the relied upon judgment had already been challenged and dismissed before the Supreme Court; and (ii) whether the writ petition should be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Leave Petition deserved to be entertained when the relied upon judgment had already been challenged and dismissed before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The relied upon judgment in the impugned order had already been assailed before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition and a Review Petition, both of which had been dismissed. In that background, the Court found it neither just nor proper to entertain the Special Leave Petition further, applying the principle of judicial consistency and discipline.

Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was not entertained and stood dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Bombay High Court and directed that any such petition, if filed, be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court declined to entertain the challenge in the Special Leave Petition, while leaving the petitioner free to seek relief before the Bombay High Court in the writ matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same relied upon judgment has already been unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court, judicial consistency and discipline may justify refusal to entertain a further challenge; where an alternate constitutional remedy is reserved, the petitioner may be left to pursue it before the appropriate forum.

---