https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171121 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. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:40:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171121 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171121