Supreme Court of India
Ajay Kumar Jain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 December, 2024
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 958 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 39665/2024
IN
M.A.D.No.14381/2024
IN
M.A.No. 714 of 2022
IN
W.P.(C) 429 of 2020
AJAY KUMAR JAIN …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
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; andB. pass such a order and directions as deemed fit and
Signature Not Verified
proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2024.12.10
17:56:30 IST
Reason:1
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, 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 of2
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.
14. No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ
petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.
3
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 post4
disposal application for modification 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.
5
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………J.
J.B. PARDIWALA
………………………………J.
R. MAHADEVAN
New Delhi.
9th December, 2024.
6