AJAY KUMAR JAINversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

          [2024] 12 S.C.R. 478 : 2024 INSC 958

                    Ajay Kumar Jain
                            v.
            The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
        (Miscellaneous Application No. 2565 of 2024)
                             In
                  M.A.D. No. 14381 of 2024
                             In
                    M.A. No. 714 of 2022
                             In
                  W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2020
                        09 December 2024
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition
to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.

                            Headnotes†
Miscellaneous Application – Whether miscellaneous application
is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in
respect of subsequent events:
Held: The miscellaneous applications filed with fresh cause of
action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the
main proceedings – No miscellaneous application is maintainable
in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent
events – In fact, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such
application as no proceedings could be said to be pending before
it – When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the
writ petition be it under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226
of the Constitution before the High Court, it is not open to the
Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous
application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of
action – If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion
and chaos and the finality of the proceedings would cease to have
any meaning – It is settled that a miscellaneous application filed
in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the
purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error – A post
disposal application for modification or clarification of the order
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                             479

          Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     would lie only in rare cases where the order passed by this Court
     is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may have
     become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent
     events or developments. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 17]

     Directions by the Supreme Court – Miscellaneous Applications –
     Regarding:
     Held: The Registry directed not to circulate any miscellaneous
     application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there
     is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous
     application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main
     proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible
     to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments –
     The Registry to insist from every applicant who intends to file any
     miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a
     declaration as above on solemn affirmation. [Paras 18, 19]

                              Case Law Cited
     Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others v. Adani Power
     Rajasthan Ltd. and Another [2024] 3 SCR 1023 : 2024 SCC
     OnLine SC 313 – relied on.

                              List of Keywords
     Miscellaneous Application; Revival of proceedings; Subsequent
     events; Proceedings terminated by final disposal; Modification of
     the order; Clarification of the order; Clerical or arithmetical error.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No.
     2565 of 2024
     In
     M.A.D. No. 14381 of 2024
     In
     M.A. No. 714 of 2022
     In
     W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2020
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2024 of the Supreme
     Court of India in DY No. 14381 of 2024
480                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties
       Petitioner-in-person.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

1.     Delay condoned.
2.     Application seeking permission to appear and argue-in-person is
       allowed.
3.     This miscellaneous application is at the instance of the original
       petitioner of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 429 of 2020.
4.     In this miscellaneous application, the applicant has prayed for the
       following reliefs:-
            “A. To Direct the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra; The S.S.P.,
            Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the
            pendency of Civil appeal number 126/2021 pending before
            the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra on 29th March, 2022 and
            subsequent dates; and
            B. pass such a order and directions as deemed fit and
            proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
5.     We take notice of the fact that the Writ Petition (Civil) No.429/2020
       came to be disposed of vide order dated 6-8-2021 in the following
       terms:-
            “The petitioner, who appears in person, seeks a two-fold
            direction under Article 32 of the Constitution:
            (i) A direction to the first respondent to devise a mechanism
            for enforcing court orders; and
            (ii) A direction to the District Judge to dispose of the
            proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner
            for breach of the order which enures to his benefit.
            2. The wider relief which has been sought by the petitioner
            in (i) above cannot be entertained in these proceedings
            under Article 32, However, insofar as the specific grievance
            of the petitioner is concerned, we direct that the application,
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       481

          Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


          Contempt Application No 26 of 2016, which has been filed
          by him complaining of a breach of the order enuring to
          his benefit may be disposed of expeditiously, if it has not
          already been disposed of, within a period of three months
          from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
          3. We clarify that we have made no observations on the
          merits of the issues which are sought to be raised in the
          contempt proceedings.
          4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
          5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
6.   Thus, while disposing of the main matter, this Court observed that
     in so far as the wider relief which was prayed for by the applicant –
     herein, could not have been granted in proceedings under Article 32
     of the Constitution of India. However, this Court proceeded to issue
     directions to the District Judge to dispose of the contempt application
     No.26/2016 filed by the applicant herein expeditiously.
7.   We have heard Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain appearing in-person.
8.   Dr. Jain brought to our notice that in pursuance of the directions
     issued by this Court, referred to above, his contempt application
     No.26/2016 was heard and the same was allowed. Against such
     order, the contemnor went in appeal and his appeal is also dismissed
     vide order dated 11-11-2024.
9.   His grievance is that despite all the aforestated developments, he
     has not been able to achieve any positive result in his litigation
10. Today, he apprehends threat to himself and his family members at
    the end of the contemnor.
11. This Miscellaneous Application on the face of it is not maintainable
    in law.
12. It is high time that this Court says something on the practice of the
    litigants filing miscellaneous applications in disposed of proceedings
    and that too after a period of 5 years, 7 years, 10 years.
13. These miscellaneous applications which are being filed on daily basis
    have something to do with fresh cause of action that might have
    arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings.
482                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


14. No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to
    revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.
15. In fact, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application
    as no proceedings could be said to be pending before it. When
    proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition be
    it under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 of the Constitution
    before the High Court, it is not open to the Court to re-open the
    proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of
    a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is
    not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of
    the proceedings would cease to have any meaning.
16. In the recent past, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed the
    following in “Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. Adani
    Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
    SC 313”:-
           “We felt it necessary to examine the question about
           maintainability of the present application as we are of the
           view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law
           as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications
           can be entertained after a matter is disposed of. This Court
           has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction
           to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of
           by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on
           31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the
           statute. This is not an application for correcting any clerical
           or arithmetical error. Neither it is an application for extension
           of time. A post disposal application for modification and
           clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare
           cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory
           in nature and the directions of the Court may become
           impossible to be implemented because of subsequent
           events or developments. The factual background of this
           Application does not fit into that description.”
                                                    (Emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, this Court made it abundantly clear that a miscellaneous
    application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable
    only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. The
    Court further clarified that a post disposal application for modification
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         483

            Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     or clarification of the order would lie only in rare cases where the
     order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of
     the Court may have become impossible to be implemented because
     of subsequent events or developments.
18. The Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous application filed
    in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific
    averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has
    been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being
    executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented
    because of subsequent events or developments.
19. The Registry shall insist from every applicant who intends to file any
    miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a
    declaration as above on solemn affirmation.
20. If the applicant appearing in-person has an apprehension that the
    contemnor is likely to cause any harm to him or any of his family
    members, it is open for him to file a writ petition before the territorial
    High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate
    relief in that regard.
21. This Miscellaneous Application stands rejected with liberty to the
    applicant appearing in-person to avail appropriate legal remedy
    before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
22. Application for appeal against Registrar’s order is also rejected.
23. If any writ petition is filed by the applicant before the High Court,
    seeking protection the High Court may look into it in accordance
    with law at the earliest.
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Miscellaneous Application Rejected.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan