2011 INSC 0126
                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        Abdul Gani Bhat

                        Vs.

Chairman,Islamia Colge.G.Brd. (25 January 2011)

                        SLP(C) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006

(G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly JJ.)

                        25.01.2011

                        ORDER

These applications have been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

"It is therefore prayed that the SLP 2995-96 of 2006 may be decided properly in
light of the averments made herein and in light of the facts and averments made in
the contempt petition 86-87 of 2009 and necessary clarifications and directions
may graciously be passed."

In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006, the petitioner had
challenged order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court in LPA No. 200/2005. The same was disposed of by this
Court on 24.3.2006 by recording the following order:

"Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.

It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to argue his case in person in LPA
No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at
Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the
same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.

The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."

In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the aforesaid order was defective
inasmuch as the LPA was not pending before the High Court. He has then averred

Law Information Center              1                    SpotLaw
that when the order passed by this Court was placed before the High Court through
IA (C) LPWA No. 326/2006, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court by making derogatory observations against him and a cost of
Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Thereafter, he filed Contempt Petition Nos.86-87/2009
before this Court, which were dismissed on 22.1.2010 on the ground that even
though various allegations had been levelled against the contemnor, no prayer was
made against him.

We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in person and carefully
perused the record. In our opinion, order dated 24.3.2006 cannot be termed as
defective because the same was passed in the presence of the petitioner. If no
matter was pending before the High Court, the petitioner, who was present in
person should have brought it to the notice of the bench which passed the order. In
any case, after a time gap of almost 4 years, we do not find any valid ground much
less justification to recall that order and decide the special leave petitions afresh.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.

Law Information Center  2  SpotLaw