TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst an order of the High Court after an earlier Special Leave Petition against the same order had been withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh Special Leave Petition. Similarly, there is nothing in the decisions cited by the appellant to show that this Court has taken a view that against the order of the High Court rejecting an application for review, an appeal by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is maintainable. In the result, we hold that the Civil Appeals are not maintainable and we accordingly dismiss the same - CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8643-8644 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2012 - A.K. Patnaik Swatanter Kumar, JJ. ORDER A. K. PATNAIK, J. These are appeals by way of special leave under Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 18.11.1997 was issued by the Municipal Council to the respondent no. 8 directing him to stop the construction work immediately and to show-cause why the licence granted to him for the construction of the building on the land in Survey. No. 250/12 of Taleigao Village should not be revoked. 3. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court at Goa alleging that the structure made by the respondent no. 8 on the land in Survey No.250/12 in Village Taleigao contravenes the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991 inasmuch as it was within 100 Mtrs. from the river Zuari in Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ) III area. The High Court called for a report from the Director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d earlier challenged the said order before this Court in a Special Leave Petition, but had withdrawn the same and, therefore, the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 filed by the appellant had become final and could not be challenged again. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in Abhishek Malviya v. Additional Welfare Commissioner and Another [(2008) 3 SCC 108]. He submitted that the appeal against the order dated 06.12.2000 of the High Court rejecting Civil Review Application No. 17 of 2000 of the applicant was also not maintainable in view of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC ), which provides that an order of the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and, therefore, learned counsel has instructions to withdraw the petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 22.11.2000 of this Court quoted above would show that no liberty was taken by the appellant to file a fresh Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the appellant saying that he had filed a review petition before the High Court. Hence, this Court appears to have permitted the appellant to pursue his remedy by way of review before the High Court. 8. The question that we have to decide is whether the appeal will lie against the order dated 29.01.2000 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Additional Welfare Commissioner and Another (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: 8. We find no merit in appellant's contention. The order dated 4-5- 1999 of this Court specifically refers to the error in the order describing the appellant as deceased and dismissed the SLP as withdrawn with the following observation: He wants to apply to the Additional Welfare Commissioner for correction. We express no opinion in that behalf . No liberty was reserved to file a fresh appeal or seek review of the order dated 13-3-1997 on merits. The order dated 13-3-1997 having attained finality, his efforts to reagitate the issue again and again is an exercise in futility. We are therefore of the view that appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. More ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
