Respected and learned Sirs, I fiind thiru.raajaa having stated that " after dismissal of slp, review in hc is maintainable with the limitation or by sec.5'
But Sir would u be kind enough to throw some elucidatory llight on a relevant portion quoted below from the famous case of KUNHAYAMEED & Ors vs STATE OF KERALA & Anr [ 2000 (6) SCC 359: JT 2000 (9) SC 110 AIR 2000 SC 2587] -
" A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have already dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution if there is a law declared by the Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in India and certainly the parties thereto. The statement contained in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under challenge on the principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the apex court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Court.”
Frighteningly , why does the Apex Court holds that “ The statement contained in the order other than on points of lawwouldbe binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under challengeon the principle of judicialdiscipline,this Court being the apex court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. "
In respect of what that “ no court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassingany view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. "
Please sisr, speak up.
