http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Review Petition (civil)  1562 of 2007

PETITIONER: PRABIR CHAKRAVARTY

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2008

BENCH: Altamas Kabir & R.V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 1562 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1246  OF 2007 WITH R.P. (C) No.1569/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1567/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1571/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1570/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1581/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1572/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1578/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1563/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1568/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1574/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1575/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1566/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007 R.P. (C) No.1573/2007 In C.A. No.1246/2007

       These review petitions and other applications for  impleadment and modification of the judgment and order  dated 9th March, 2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1246 of  2007, arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15224 of 2006, have come  up before us in somewhat unusual circumstances and are a  departure from the traditional review petitions that are usually  filed.

The above-mentioned appeal had been filed by All Bengal  Licensees Association, Kolkata, against Raghabendra Singh,  Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of West  Bengal, and other officials of the Excise Department, against  an order of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court,  dated 29th August, 2006, passed on a contempt petition  dismissing the same. Holding that the contemnors had committed contempt of  court, this Court allowed the appeal and severely warned the  concerned officials and censured their conduct.

During the pendency of the appeal, several applications  were filed for impleadment in the appeal, but the same were  dismissed.  It appears that after the judgment and order dated  9th March, 2007, was passed by this Court, several writ  petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32 of the  Constitution by those persons whose impleadment  applications had been dismissed earlier.  When the said writ  petitions were listed for admission on 20th November, 2007,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

this Court directed the Registry to treat the writ petitions as  review petitions against the judgment dated 9th March, 2007,  in Civil Appeal No. 1246 of 2007 and cognate matters.  The  Registry was also directed to place all the Interlocutory  Applications along with the Review Petitions before the Hon’ble  Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench.

That is how these matters have been placed before us.

With due respect, we suspect that the entire facts were  possibly not brought to their Lordships’ notice.

Admittedly, none of the writ petitioners were parties to  the Civil Appeal No. 1246 of 2007.  They, therefore, have no  locus standi to maintain a review petition in respect of the  final order passed in a proceeding arising out of an order  passed in a contempt proceeding relating to wilful  disobedience of orders passed by this Court.  The writ  petitioners are the beneficiaries of such wilful disobedience  and will have to suffer the consequences of the actions of the  contemnors who have been found to be guilty of contempt of  court.

Apart from the above, the petitioners had applied for  being impleaded as parties in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 15224 of 2006  and such prayer was rejected and the impleadment  applications were dismissed.  Now that the Civil Appeal arising  out of the S.L.P(Civil) No. 15224 of 2006 stands dismissed, the  impleadment applications filed thereafter for the same purpose  are wholly misconceived and are liable to be dismissed.    Consequentially, the review petitions which are dependent on  the impleadment applications are also liable to be dismissed.   

However, the petitioners cannot be left without a remedy  since their writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution  were not taken up for consideration in the writ jurisdiction,  but were converted into petitions for review possibly on a first  impression that no order could be passed in the writ petitions  and that the judgment and order passed in Special Leave  Petition (C) No.15224 of 2006 itself was  required to be  modified. But in the facts of the case as set out hereinabove,  we are unable to entertain the review petitions which therefore  merit dismissal.

In our view, the petitioners’ remedy can only be taken up  in the writ jurisdiction.  In that view of the matter, while  dismissing  the  review  petitions and the connected petitions  for impleadment and for hearing of the petitions in Court, we  make it clear that the petitioners may file fresh writ petitions  under Article 32 of the Constitution  on the same cause of  action as their earlier writ petitions were not taken up or  treated as writ petitions.

There will be no order as to costs.