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

PETITIONER: BAYER (INDIA) LTD.  AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASIFTRA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 250        1991 SCC  (1) 647  JT 1991 (1)   429        1991 SCALE  (1)161

ACT:      Constitution  of India, 1950-Article 136-Special  Leave Petition  by appellants, aggrieved by High  Court  judgment, not a party in writ petition-Liberty given to file review in High Court.      Civil  Procedure  Code,  1908-Order  XLVII-Review-Party affected by High Court-Judgment though not party in the writ petition-Whether can file Review Petition in High Court.

HEADNOTE:      A writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the communication of Respondent No. 2-Corporation, directing that  no  development be made in the disputed land,  and  no building  construction permitted within a  certain  distance from  the chemical factories in view of the  representations of the owners of the factories.      The  High  Court allowed the writ petition  and  struck down the aforesaid communication.      Being aggrieved and adversely affected by the judgment, some  of the owners of the chemical factories,  even  though they were not parties in the writ petition, filed a  special leave petition.      Disposing of the Appeal, this Court,      HELD:  (1)  Appellants  can  be  said  to  be   parties aggrieved by the judgment, even if they are not regarded  as necessary parties in the writ petition. [251G-252A]      (2)  In the facts and circumstances of the case,  there is  no need to set  aside the judgment of the High Court  at the instance of the appellants.  They are, given liberty  to file  a review petition before the High Court.   The  review petition,  if filed, shall be entertained by the High  Court and  the appellants given a hearing as if the  matters  were heard afresh as far as they are concerned.  It is  clarified that  the  review application will not be  confined  to  the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but                                                        251 the  entire controversy will be regarded as open as  between the appellants and the respondents. [252A-D]

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

JUDGMENT:       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 578  of 1991.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  8.11.1990  of  the Bombay High Court in W. P. No. 4497 of 1991.     Ashok   Desai,   N.  Serwai,    Dilip    Udeshi,    P.H. Parekh   and   J.P. Pathak for the Appellants.     U.R.   Lalit,  K.K.  Singhvi  and  Soli  J.    Sorabjee, A.M.    Khanwilkar,   Ravinder  Narain,  S.   Ganesh,   D.N. Misra   and   S.   Kachwaha,   S.K. Dholakia and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.     K.K.   Venugopal,   E.C.   Agrawala,   Ashwini    Kumar, Ms. Purnima Sethi and A.V. Pilli for the Applicant.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KANIA,  J.  This  Special Leave  Petition  is  directed against    the judgment  of  a  Division   Bench   of    the Bombay    High    Court   in   Writ Petition No.   4497   of 1990.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  said  writ   petition and     struck    down    a    communication    from     the Bombay   Municipal Corporation.  respondent  no.  2  herein, informing   the  petitioners  in   the said  writ  petition, who  are  arrayed  as  respondents  nos.  3  to  13   before us,    that   their   application   for    permission     to develop    the   property, namely,  the  land  in   question situated  at  Village   Balkum   near   Thane, was  rejected in   view   of  the  representations  submitted    to    the Government   by   the   owners   of    chemical    factories situated    in    the    said   village,   who    are    the appellants/petitioners     herein    that    no     building construction  permission   should  be   granted   within   a certain    distance   from    the    said   factories.   The petitioners in  the  Special  Leave  Petition  are  some  of the said  chemical  factories.  They  were  not  joined   in the  writ  petition  as respondents  and  have  prayed   for leave   to   file  the  Special  Leave   Petition   on   the ground   that  the  judgment  adversely  affects  them   and they are aggrieved by the same.      Permission is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.      We  find that appellants can be  said  to  be   parties aggrieved  by  the impugned  judgment,  even  if  they   are not  regarded  as  necessary   parties                                                        252 in the writ petition.  In the facts and circumstances of the case,  we  find  that  there is no need  to  set  aside  the impugned  judgment of the Bombay High Court at the  instance of  the  appellants.   The appellants  are.  however,  given liberty  to  file a review petition before the  Bombay  High Court  for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a  period of  four  weeks from today. 9 In our opinion, it  is  proper that  the entire controversy to which the  judgment  relates should  be determined in the light of the submissions  which may be made by the appellants.      In  these  circumstances,  we direct  that  the  review petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the Bombay  High Court  and the appellants will be given a hearing as if  the matter  were heard afresh as far as they are concerned.   It is clarified that the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review  can be  sought  but the entire controversy will be  regarded  as open as between the appellants herein and the respondents.     The interim order made by this Court on January 8,  1991 will  continue  to  remain  in  operation  till  the  review petition is decided by the High Court.  However, it will  be open for the High Court to vary or vacate the interim  order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties

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

or  by any of the interveners here.  If the review  petition is  not  filed  within the said period of  four  weeks,  the appeal  shall stand dismissed and all interim orders  passed by us shall be deemed to be vacated.      In  our  opinion, the review petition  deserves  to  be disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request the  High Court to dispose of the review petition, if  filed as  aforestated,  within four months from today and  in  any event, by the 30th September, 1991.      The  matter  shall now be placed before  learned  Chief Justice  of  the Bombay High Court for  passing  appropriate directions.      The appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no  order as to costs. V.P.R.                               Appeal  disposed   of.                                                        253