‘Complete Waste Of Time: Supreme Court Imposes Cost On Litigant Who Filed Writ Petition After Review Was Dismissed

Calling it ‘a complete wasteage of judicial time’, a Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Aravind Kumar dismissed the writ petition and imposed cost. However, considering the financial constraints of the petitioner it limited the cost amount to Rs 10,000. The Bench was perturbed that after the dismissal of the review petition instead of filing a curative petition, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to reopen his case. In view of the same, it noted, “No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raising the issue again and again once it is resolved at the highest level.”

At the outset, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioner, apprised the Bench that a grave injustice has been committed in his client’s case. The petitioner was a clerk at the State Bank of India and he was removed from service. He submitted that his review petition was not heard in open court and was disposed of by circulation. It was also submitted that certain issues including grounds of dismissal were not deliberated upon and thus they had not attained finality. Nedumpara also apprised the Bench that the High Court had decided in his client’s favour.

Justice Kaul stated that his client had fought his case right up till the Apex Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and later the review. He indicated that once review was dismissed, he could not have filed a writ petition to re-agitate the settled issues.

Nedumpara submitted that the prayer is that the instant writ petition be considered as a curative petition. Objecting to the same, Justice Kaul said, “A curative is curative.”

Thereafter, Nedumpara submitted that he would be challenging the validity of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 that mandates the filing of a certificate of Senior Advocate along with a curative petition. He also indicated that there are exceptions to the doctrine of res-judicata.

Unimpressed with the submissions, Justice Kaul enquired, “If somebody thinks that the Supreme Court has decided it, but I am not happy and approach it 20 times saying justice has not been done?” He suggested that there ought to be finality to the litigation.

[Case Title: KC Tharakan v. State Bank of India And Ors. Diary No. 27458/2022]

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439