http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) RAMASWAMY, K. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 114        JT 1995 (9)   109  1995 SCALE  (6)742

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                         JUDGMENT J.S. VERMA, J. :      This writ  petition is  a sequel  of Civil  Appeal Nos. 4708-4712 of  1989, M/s.  Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. vs. State  of Karnataka  & Ors.,  and the  connected matters which were  decided on 19.10.1994. That judgment is reported in 1995  (1) SCC  574. After  that decision, Review Petition Nos. 507-511  of 1995  were filed. The order dated 25.4.1995 made in those review petitions is as under :-           "One of  the grounds  taken for the      prayer  made   to  hear  oral  arguments      before deciding  the review petitions is      that  there   was  no   opportunity   to      supplement the written submissions filed      before the  Bench of  three  Judges  and      that the  same could not be supplemented      before    the     Constitution    Bench.      Accordingly, we  permit  the  filing  of      supplementary  written  submissions,  if      any, by  the parties  mentioning therein      and    emphasizing     the    additional      submissions, if any on which reliance is      sought to  be placed.  The supplementary      written submissions, if any, be filed by      the  parties   within  four  weeks.  The      prayer made  for hearing  oral arguments      on the  review petitions  would then  be      considered. The  matters  be  listed  in      Chambers thereafter."      After the  supplementary written  submissions had  been filed by  the parties, the review petitions were rejected by order dated 8.8.1995 as under :-           "We have  perused  the  grounds  on      which a  review of  the order is sought.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    We had  by our  order dated  25th April,      1995    permitted    the    filing    of      supplementary written submissions by the      parties and  had stated that they should      clearly    emphasis    the    additional      submissions, if  any, on  which reliance      is sought  to be  placed.  We  had  also      stated that  the prayer for hearing oral      arguments  would   then  be  considered.      Pursuant to  the said  order the written      submissions have  been filed and we have      perused the  same.  Having  perused  the      same we  find that  the submissions made      therein have  all been  answered in  the      judgment sought  to be reviewed. We have      not noticed  any submission  on which we      would like  to hear  oral  arguments  by      counsel. Since  we do not find any merit      in    the    additional    supplementary      submissions filed  in these  proceedings      we do not entertain the Review Petitions      and reject them."      The present  writ petition  under Article  32 has  been filed by the petitioners after the rejection of their review petitions as above.      The submissions  of Shri  G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the petitions are two : (1) The above civil appeals were listed before the Constitution Bench only for directions and were not heard on merits before they were decided on merits; and (2)  The judgment rendered in the civil appeals reported in  Khoday   Distilleries  Ltd.  and  Others  vs.  State  of Karnataka and  Others, 1995  (1) SCC  574, is invalid on the ground  of  violation  of  principles  of  natural  justice. Reliance is  placed on the decision in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak &  Anr., 1988  (Suppl.1) SCR  1, in  support of  these submissions. In  substance, the  argument of learned counsel for the  petitioners is  that the  civil appeals having been decided  on  merits  without  being  heard  on  merits,  the judgment  rendered  therein  is  invalid  for  violation  of principles of  natural justice.  In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission.      The foundation  for the argument advanced in support of the writ  petition does  not exist.  The above-quoted orders dated 25.4.1995  and 8.8.1995  clearly show  that even after the decision  of the  civil appeals,  the  petitioners  were permitted to file supplementary written submissions, if any, emphasizing the  additional submissions,  if any,  on  which reliance was  sought to  be placed  on the  merits; and  the supplementary written  submissions filed by the parties were also considered  while deciding the review petitions. In the order  rejecting   the  review  petitions,  it  was  clearly mentioned that  all the  submissions made by the parties had been answered  in the  judgment sought  to be  reviewed. The decision in  Antulay (supra) has no application. The attempt made by  this  writ  petition  for  reconsideration  of  the decision by  the Constitution  Bench in  Khoday Distilleries (supra) has  no merit and reliance placed on the decision in Antulay (supra) on the facts of this case is misplaced.      In view  of  the  strong  reliance  placed  by  learned counsel for  the petitioners  on  the  decision  in  Antulay (supra)  to  invoke  Article  32  of  the  Constitution  for reconsideration of the aforesaid judgment deciding the civil appeals, we consider it appropriate to indicate that Antulay does not  hold that a decision of this Court after attaining finality can  be reopened  under Article 32. The decision in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Antulay must  be confined  to the  peculiar circumstances of that case as indicated in that judgment itself. The decision in Antulay  was distinguished  and confined  to the facts of that case  by a  Constitution Bench in Krishnaswami etc. vs. Union of India and Others, 1992 (4) SCC 605, as under :-           "........Antulay   case   is   also      distinguishable  for   the  reason  that      therein  the   result  of   the  earlier      decision  against   him  challenged   by      Antulay in the petition under Article 32      had    the    effect    of    conferring      jurisdiction on  a Court contrary to the      specific   statutory   provision   .....      Moreover, judgment of Mishra, J. as well      as  that  of  Mukhar  ji,  J.  as  their      Lordships  were   then,  give   a  clear      indication that the decision therein was      not intended  to be  a precedent and was      confined  to   the  peculiar  facts  and      circumstances   of   that   case.   This      distinction is  sufficient to  hold that      Antulay   does    not    permit    these      petitioners to  claim reconsideration of      the   earlier    decision    in    these      circumstances."      It is  clear that  the decision  in Antulay is based on the  peculiar  facts  of  that  case  wherein  the  question involved was  of the  conferment of  jurisdiction on a court contrary to the specific statutory provision. In a case like the present,  where in  substance the  challenge is  to  the correctness of  a decision  on merits  after it  has  become final, there  can be  no question  of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on the basis  of its  effect in  accordance with  law. Frequent resort to  the decision  in Antulay  in such  situations  is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasis this fact.      Moreover, it may also be observed that even in Antulay, the writ petition under Article 32 filed by him to challenge the decision  of this Court was dismissed and it was only in an appeal  filed subsequently by Antulay against an order of the Bombay  High Court made during the trial that the relief was granted  to Antulay.  While dismissing the writ petition under Article  32 of  the Constitution  filed by Antulay, in the judgment  reported in  1984 (3)  SCR 482  - Abdul Rehman Antulay vs.  Union of  India and  Ors.  etc.  -  this  Court observed as under :-           "In  my  view,  the  writ  petition      challenging the  validity of  the  order      and judgment  passed by  this  Court  as      nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be      entertained. I  wish to  make  it  clear      that the dismissal of this writ petition      will not  prejudice  the  right  of  the      petitioner, to  approach the  Court with      an appropriate  review  petition  or  to      file any  other application which he may      be entitled in law to file."      These undisputed  facts appear  from  the  decision  in Antulay itself  on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners.      Consequently, the  writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed, accordingly.