State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Manisha Dwivedi and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 11293-11294 of 2001
(With IA.Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999)
(With IA.Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of U.P. and Ors.
Respondent: Manisha Dwivedi and Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 11293-11294 of 2001
(With IA.Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999)
(With IA.Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Avadh Behari Rohtagi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashok K. Srivasta-va and Mr. Prakash K. Singh, Advocates with him for the Petition-ers.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Mr. Ankur Chawla, Mr. Hrishi-kesh Baruah, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Special leave petitions – Consideration – Impugned order passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 as shown – No typographical error – Petitions against interlocutory orders and writ petitions pending. Held that Court would not entertain such SLPs. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 ( in fact it is found to be 12.1.2000). Notice was issued on the special leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not brought to the notice of the Court.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for two reasons: first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2001; if that were to be correct there was no delay in filing the special leave petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year which remains unex-plained and, therefore, the special leave petitions cannot be entertained. Secondly, the impugned order is only an interlocu-tory order and the writ petition is still pending. This Court will not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court. We do not find any special circumstanc-es warranting our interference in this case.
4. Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
1. The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 ( in fact it is found to be 12.1.2000). Notice was issued on the special leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not brought to the notice of the Court.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for two reasons: first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2001; if that were to be correct there was no delay in filing the special leave petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year which remains unex-plained and, therefore, the special leave petitions cannot be entertained. Secondly, the impugned order is only an interlocu-tory order and the writ petition is still pending. This Court will not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court. We do not find any special circumstanc-es warranting our interference in this case.
4. Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
