High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal Under Article 32 Of Constitution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court added that if petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment for not being heard, they can either pray for its recall or challenge the same through a special leave petition.

“In our considered opinion, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.,” opined the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.

The present petitioners had filed this writ petition against the Bombay High Court judgment. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had directed the respondent to demolish five apartment complexes. The demolition was ordered on the ground of not having valid permits from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority on government land.

Though a SLP was preferred, the same was dismissed by the Court as the petitioners wanted to explore other legal remedies. Pursuant to this, an application seeking modification of the challenged judgment was filed before the High Court. Therein, the respondents who were directed to deposit Rs.8 Crores submitted that they would rehabilitate flat owners by to each of the flat owners alternate suitable residential flats. However, the same was also dismissed by the Court observing:

“The flat owners seem to suggest that they would be satisfied with rehabilitation instead of monetary compensation. Though the flat owners and the developers/builders can enter any arrangement they deem appropriate, there is no reason to modify our order… If the flat owners and these respondents ultimately enter some arrangement, this amount could be utilised to construct alternate premises. However, based on the plea that respondents 8 to 10 will build alternate premises and allot the same to flat owners, no case has been made to modify our directions.”

Subsequently, the petitioners filed this writ petition to declare the impugned judgment as illegal. They contended that they were not impleaded as a party and thus were not heard. Apart from that, several directions were pleaded to be issued including a direction against the respondents to regularize the petitioners' apartments. Further, the grant occupancy/leasehold rights over the alleged government lands over which their apartments have been constructed were also pleaded.

However, in view of the above observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition while leaving it open for them to avail such other remedy as may be available under law.

Appearances:

For petitioner: Mr. Mathews J Nedumpara, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Adv. Ms. Hemali Kurne, Adv. Ms. Rohini Ameen, Adv. Mr. Shameem Fayiz, Adv. Ms. Sushma Sharma, Adv.

Case details: VIMAL BABU DHUMADIYA vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No. - 1995/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Click here to read/ download the judgment