Holding

Persons not parties to a writ petition but adversely affected by its judgment are aggrieved parties and may be allowed to file a review petition in the High Court.

Summary

A writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenged a communication of the Municipal Corporation that barred development of a parcel of land near chemical factories. The High Court set aside the communication, thereby affecting the interests of the factory owners who were not parties to the writ petition. Those owners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that they were aggrieved by the High Court judgment. The Court held that persons who are not necessary parties to a writ petition but are adversely affected can be considered aggrieved parties for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition. Instead of setting aside the High Court judgment, the Court granted the appellants liberty to file a review petition in the High Court, which will be heard afresh and not limited to the ordinary grounds of review. The appeal was disposed of, with a direction that the review petition, if filed within four weeks, shall be entertained and decided expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether persons not joined as parties in a writ petition but adversely affected by its judgment can be deemed aggrieved parties for filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Whether such aggrieved persons may be permitted to seek a review of the High Court judgment instead of having the Supreme Court set aside the judgment.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLVII
Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

Special Leave Petitionaggrieved partyreview petitionCivil Procedure CodeArticle 136High Court judgmentnon-partyjurisdictionBayer (India) Ltd.Maharashtra

Judgment

BAYER (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS.
V.
STATE OF MAHARASI-JTRA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 6, 1991

B [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H. KANIA AND
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

---f Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136--Special Leave Petition by
appellants, aggrieved by High Court judgment, not a party in writ
petition-Liberty given to file review in High Court.
c
-- Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XLVII-Review-Party
affected by High Court-Judgment though not party in the writ
petition-Whether can file Review Petition in High Court.

A writ petition was tiled in the High Court challenging the
D communication of Respondent No. 2-Corporation, directing that no
development be made in the disputed land, and no building construc-
tion permitted within a certain distance from the chemical factories in
view of the representations of the owners of the factories.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the
·~ , E aforesaid communication •
•
Being aggrieved and adversely affected by the judgment, some of
the owners of the chemical factories, even though they were not parties
in the writ petition, filed a special leave petition.

F Disposing of the Appeal, this Court,

HELD: (1) Appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the
judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties in the writ
'
petition. [251G-252A]

G (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to set
aside the judgment of the High Court at the instance of the appellants.
They are, given liberty to file a review petition before the High Court.
~.....; The review petition, if tiled, shall be entertained by the High Court and
the appellants given a hearing as if the matters were heard afresh as far
as they are concerned. It is clarified that the review application will not
H be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but

250
BAYER (I) LTD. 1'. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KANIA, J.] 251

~c the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appel-
lants and the respondents. [252A-D] A

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 578
of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.1990 of the Bombay B
High Court in W.P. No. 4497 of 1991.

. Ashok Desai, N. Serwai, Dilip Udeshi, P.H. Parekh and J.P.
Pathak for the Appellants.

U.R. Lalit, K.K. Singhvi and Soli J. Sorabjee, A.M. Khanwil-
kar, Ravinder Narain, S. Ganesh, D.N. Misra and S. Kachwaha, S.K. c
Dholakia and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
~

K.K. Venugopal, E.C. Agrawala, Ashwini Kumar, Ms. Purnima
Sethi a.nd A. V. Pilli for the Applicant.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KANIA, J. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the
/
judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No. 4497 of 1990. The High Court allowed the said writ peti-
tion and struck down a communication from the Bombay Municipal E
Corporation, respondent no. 2 herein, informing the petitioners in the
said writ petition, who are arrayed as respondents nos. 3 to 13 before
us, that their application for permission to develop the property,
namely, the land in question situated at Village Balkum near Thane,
,., .,. was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the Govern-
ment by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village, F
who are the appellants/petitioners herein that no building construction
permission should be granted within a certain distance from the said
factories. The petitioners in the Special Leave J>etition are some of the
said chemical factories. They were not joined in the writ petition as
respondents and have prayed for leave to file the Special Leave Peti-
tion on the ground that the judgment adversely affects them and they G
are aggrieved by the same.
' Permission is granted. Leave is granted. Counsel heard.

We find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the
impugned judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

A in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the
Bombay High Court at the instance of the appellants. The appellants
are, however, given liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay
High Court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period of
four weeks from today. In our opinion, it is proper that the entire
B
controversy to which the judgment relates should be determined in the
light of the submissions which may be made by the appellants.

In these circumstances, we direct that the review petition, if
filed, shall be entertained by the Bombay High Court and the appel-
lants will be given a hearing as if the matter were heard afresh as far as
c they are concerned. I1 is clarified that the hearing of the review appli-
cation will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review
can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as
between the appellants herein and the respondents.

The interim order made by this Court on January 8, 1991 will
D
continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by
the High Court. However, it will be open for the High Court to vary or
vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any
of the parties or by any of the inte'rveners here. If the review petition is
not filed within the said period of four weeks, the appeal shall stand
dismissed and all interim orders passed by us shall be deemed to be
E
vacated.

In our opinion, the review petition deserves to be disposed of
with expedition and we would, therefore, request the High Court to
dispose of the review petition, if filed as aforestated, within four
months from today and in any event, by the 30th September, 1991.
F
The matter shall now be placed before learned Chief Justice of
the Bombay High Court for passing appropriate directions.

The appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeal disposed of.

>-