Recently, the Supreme Court stated that when this Court refused to grant special leave to appeal, even by way of a reasoned order, it will not attract the ‘Doctrine of Merger’.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court decision. The appeal involved a Review Application filed by ex-propriated landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation.
The High Court dismissed the Review Application using the ‘Doctrine of Merger’, stating that the judgment being reviewed from 09.01.2019 stood merged in the order from 03.07.2019 dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) numbered D.No.15990/2019.
In this case, the High Court, in interpreting a previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., concluded that since the delay was condoned by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, it implied that leave to leave to appeal was granted. Therefore, when the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, it effectively invoked its appellate jurisdiction. The High Court was of the view that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court amounted to be a decision on merits of the case which would attract the ‘Doctrine of Merger’.
Supreme Court stated that during the course of hearing, it could not be disputed that the High Court has erroneously construed the dictum of this Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra). It is well-settled that when this Court refused to grant special leave to appeal, be it even by way of a reasoned order, it will not attract the ‘Doctrine of Merger’. That would be an order where this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The bench opined that if the leave to appeal was granted and a consequential order was passed, such an order would then attract the ‘Doctrine of Merger’ and consequently, the decision of the High Court which is under challenge, shall stand merged with that of the order passed by this Court. Since the High Court’s judgment will stand subsumed in the order of this Court and in a way, will no longer be in existence, an application seeking review thereof shall not be maintainable.
Supreme Court set aside the impugned order to the extent it declined to entertain the Review Application on the premise that after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, no Review Petition was maintainable.
In view of the above, the bench directed the parties to appear before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, on 29.04.2024.
Case Title: Sangita v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4609-4610 OF 2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
