Case Law Details
Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and allowed the applicant’s request to appear and argue in person. The miscellaneous application was filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 429 of 2020 seeking directions to the District Judge, Agra, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, to provide protection to the applicant during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 126/2021 and on subsequent dates.
The Court noted that the original writ petition had been disposed of on 06.08.2021. In that order, while declining the wider relief sought under Article 32 of the Constitution for devising a mechanism to enforce court orders, the Court had directed the District Judge to dispose of Contempt Application No. 26 of 2016 expeditiously within three months, without expressing any opinion on its merits.
The applicant informed the Court that, pursuant to those directions, the contempt application had been heard and allowed, and that the contemnor’s appeal had also been dismissed by order dated 11.11.2024. However, the applicant submitted that despite these developments he had not achieved any positive result in the litigation and now apprehended threats to himself and his family members from the contemnor.
The Supreme Court held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable. It observed that litigants were increasingly filing miscellaneous applications in proceedings that had already been finally disposed of, even after several years, on the basis of fresh causes of action having only a remote connection with the original proceedings. The Court stated that once proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 stand finally disposed of, they cannot be reopened through a miscellaneous application in relation to subsequent events. It observed that after final disposal, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications, and reopening concluded proceedings would undermine the finality of judicial decisions.
Referring to the decision in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313, the Court noted that post-disposal miscellaneous applications are maintainable only for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, or, in rare cases, for modification or clarification where the original order is executory in nature and subsequent events have rendered its implementation impossible.
The Court directed that the Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in disposed proceedings unless it contains a specific averment on oath that the application has become necessary as the executory directions in the main order have become impossible to implement due to subsequent events or developments. The Registry was further directed to insist upon such a declaration on solemn affirmation from every applicant filing such an application.
Regarding the applicant’s apprehension of threat from the contemnor, the Court observed that it was open to him to file a writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate relief. It further observed that if such a writ petition is filed seeking protection, the High Court may consider it in accordance with law at the earliest.
The miscellaneous application was rejected with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate legal remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The application for appeal against the Registrar’s order and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another (SC), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Application seeking permission to appear and argue-in-person is allowed.
3. This miscellaneous application is at the instance of the original petitioner of Writ Petition (Civil) No.429 of 2020.
4. In this miscellaneous application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“A. To Direct the Hon’ble Distt. Judge, Agra; The S.S.P., Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the pendency of Civil appeal number 126/2021 pending before the Hon’ble Distt. Judge, Agra on 29th March,2022 and subsequent dates; and
B. pass such a order and directions as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
5. We take notice of the fact that the Writ Petition (Civil) No.429/2020 came to be disposed of vide order dated 6-8-2021 in the following terms:-
“The petitioner, who appears in person, seeks a two-fold direction under Article 32 of the Constitution:
i. A direction to the first respondent to devise a mechanism for enforcing court orders; and
ii. A direction to the District Judge to dispose of the proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner for breach of the order which enures to his benefit,
2. The wider relief which has been sought by the petitioner in (i) above cannot be entertained in these proceedings under Article 32, However, insofar as the specific grievance of the petitioner is concerned, we direct that the application, Contempt Application No 26 of 2016, which has been filed by him complaining of a breach of the order enuring to his benefit may be disposed of expeditiously, if it has not already been disposed of, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. We clarify that we have made no observations on the merits of the issues which are sought to be raised in the contempt proceedings.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
6. Thus, while disposing of the main matter, this Court observed that in so far as the wider relief which was prayed for by the applicant – herein, could not have been granted in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court proceeded to issue directions to the District Judge to dispose of the contempt application No.26/2016 filed by the applicant herein expeditiously.
7. We have heard Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain appearing in-person.
8. DR. Jain brought to our notice that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, referred to above, his contempt application No.26/2016 was heard and the same was allowed. Against such order, the contemnor went in appeal and his appeal is also dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2024.
9. His grievance is that despite all the aforestated developments, he has not been able to achieve any positive result in his litigation,
10. Today, he apprehends threat to himself and his family members at the end of the contemnor.
11. This Miscellaneous Application on the face of it is not maintainable in law.
12. It is high time that this Court says something on the practice of the litigants filing miscellaneous applications in disposed of proceedings and that too after a period of 5 years, 7 years, 10 years.
13. These miscellaneous applications which are being filed on daily basis have something to do with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings.
14. No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.
15. In fact, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application as no proceedings could be said to be pending before it. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition be it under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceedings would cease to have any meaning.
16. In the recent past, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed the following in “Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313”:-
“We felt it necessary to examine the question about maintainability of the present application as we are of the view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is disposed of. This Court has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the statute. This is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. Neither it is an application for extension of time. A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. The factual background of this Application does not fit into that description.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, this Court made it abundantly clear that a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. The Court further clarified that a post disposal application for modification or clarification of the order would lie only in rare cases where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.
18. The Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.
19. The Registry shall insist from every applicant who intends to file any miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a declaration as above on solemn affirmation.
20. If the applicant appearing in-person has an apprehension that the contemnor is likely to cause any harm to him or any of his family members, it is open for him to file a writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate relief in that regard.
21. This Miscellaneous Application stands rejected with liberty to the applicant appearing in-person to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
22. Application for appeal against Registrar’s order is also
23. If any writ petition is filed by the applicant before the High Court, seeking protection the High Court may look into it in accordance with law at the earliest.
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
