2004 INSC 0108
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                               Common Cause

                                                      Vs.

                                               Union of India

                               Ias Nos. 7-8 In Cas Nos. 3988-89 of 2001

                                  (B. N. Agarwal and R. C. Lahoti JJ.)

                                                 27.01.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

1. This is an application styled as one seeking "clarifications, reconsiderations and
modifications" in the judgment dated 8-10-2003 (Common Cause v. Union of India,)
delivered by this Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. We are satisfied that the application
does not seek any clarifications. It is an application seeking in substance a review of the
judgment. By disguising the application as one for "clarification", the attempt is to seek a
hearing in the open court avoiding the procedure governing the review petitions which, as
per the rules of this Court, are to be dealt with in chambers. Such an attempt on the part of
the applicant has to be deprecated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the following observation
contained in the opinion of the third Judge in the High Court:

        "Before parting, 1 would like to mention something which has troubled me a bit.
        Section 1(3) of the Act is not in force. On what authority can the Central Government
        issue notification under Section 1(3) of the Act ?"

4. We do not think that the abovesaid is a finding recorded by the learned Judge. Be that as it
may, this was not a point argued before the Court when the civil appeal was taken up for
hearing. A point not argued will be deemed to have been given up and cannot be permitted to
be raised now by filing of such a petition.

5. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that this Court can
issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to issue notification for enforcement
of an enactment already passed by Parliament. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the
dissenting opinion contained in paragraphs 111 and 112 of a Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India (:) The view taken by the minority cannot be cited

1  SpotLaw
as the law laid down by the Constitution Bench nor can it be followed in the face of the
opinion of the majority to the contrary.

6. Reliance is also placed on the observations contained in paragraph 5 of Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India ( 0) Such observations, or simply what was done in a
given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a ratio of the judgment and
certainly not as a precedent. Whether a writ of mandamus of the nature which was prayed for
before the Court can be issued or not - was not a point argued and decided by the Court.

7. The applications are wholly devoid of any merit and are therefore dismissed.

2  SpotLaw