IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 1562 OF 2007 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1246  OF 2007

PRABIR CHAKRAVARTY ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ...Respondents

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

O R D E R

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,

2

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,

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

..............................J. (Altamas Kabir)

..............................J. (R.V. Raveendran)

New Delhi, Dated:  26th February, 2008

6