Sir,
This is to seek your kind opinion and advise on the violation of law in the following Order issued by a two judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order except to direct that the quantum of payment to be made to the respondent no.1 will be Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) [instead of Rs. 50 Lakhs] by the petitioner-college within a period of three months. ...
The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
I am not a law expert, but to my knowledge, an impugned judgment cannot be modified by the Supreme Court unless leave of appeal is granted to an SLP. But here, an SLP is disposed reducing the amount of compensation from 50 Lakhs to 10 Lakhs, without granting leave of appeal, without assigning any reason, without hearing the parties, and with no speaking order.
The three judges bench in Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (AIR 2000 SC 2587) has laid down the law very clearly that unless leave is granted in a Special Leave Petition, the SLP petitioner shall be outside the gate of entry of appellate arena of this Hon’ble Court, that this Hon’ble Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding a petition for special leave to appeal and that what is impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave to appeal and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it.
Also, the case was posted before the said bench in violation of the Supreme Court of India—Practice and Procedure. Chapter VI, Allocation, Listing of Cases & Cause Lists B. (iii) Subsequent Listings, which reads as under:
In order to ensure that once listed, the matter is heard by the same Hon’ble Judges, the following practice is being followed by the Registry of Supreme Court: (a) On first listing, if a matter is adjourned by a Bench for subsequent hearing(s); it is listed before the Hon’ble Presiding Judge of that Bench, if available at that time. If the Hon’ble Presiding Judge has retired or is not available, the matter is listed before the other Hon’ble Judge, member of that Bench. If both/all the Hon’ble Judges, member of that Bench have retired, the matter is listed through Computer, as per Subject Category.
(b) If notice is issued in a matter, it is listed before the Hon’ble Presiding Judge of the Bench which issued the notice, if available at that time. If the Hon’ble Presiding Judge is not available due to non sitting or retirement, it is listed before the Hon’ble Second/Third Judge Member of the Bench which issued the notice. The same Coram continues till leave in SLP is granted/Appeal is admitted, as the case may, or the matter is dismissed. If both/all the Hon’ble Judges, member of that Bench have retired, the matter is listed through Computer, as per Subject Category.
However, in violation of the procedure of the Hon’ble Court, the matter was posted before a different bench and it was disposed in the above mentioned manner. The impugned judgment was not even stayed by the judges before whom the SLP first came up for hearing, and that day, the judges had issued the following order:
The matter abovementioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 17th April, 2015 when the court was pleased to pass the following Order:
“Issue notice.
Respondent No.1 appears in person on caveat and accepts notice. Let notice be issued to the other Respondents. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter be listed on a non-miscellaneous day in the month of July, 2015. Respondent No.1 states that he will not initiate any contempt proceedings till the next date of hearing.”
I have filed a review petition. But is there any constitutional remedy available beyond a review petition and curative petition?
